[Mr Speaker  in the Chair]

Christopher Chope: I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
	 Question put forthwith  (Standing Order No. 163),  and negatived.

Grahame Morris: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister, while speaking to a public services summit, claimed that he would not allow a rigged market in the NHS and said that there would be no higher tariffs for private providers. That contradicts the Government's own impact assessment, published with the Health and Social Care Bill.
	In view of the mistaken impression that has been created and the seriousness of the issue for many hundreds of thousands of NHS workers and the public at large, will you advise me, Mr Speaker, whether there is any redress in the House? Will the Deputy Prime Minister come to apologise for creating that mistaken impression?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The issue in question involves a point of debate about which the hon. Gentleman has strong views. He asks about redress. The issue is how best to take forward his concerns. He should consult the Table Office, which he will find a source of profitable advice. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.

BILL PRESENTED

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mrs Secretary May, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Secretary Hammond, Mr Secretary Lansley, Secretary Michael Gove, Mr Secretary Clarke and James Brokenshire, presented a Bill to provide for the destruction, retention, use and other regulation of certain evidential material; to impose consent and other requirements in relation to certain processing of biometric information relating to children; to provide for a code of practice about surveillance camera systems and for the appointment and role of the Surveillance Camera Commissioner; to provide for judicial approval in relation to certain authorisations and notices under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; to provide for the repeal or rewriting of powers of entry and associated powers and for codes of practice and other safeguards in relation to such powers; to make provision about vehicles left on land; to provide for a maximum detention period of 14 days for terrorist suspects; to replace certain stop and search powers and to provide for a related code of practice; to amend the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006; to make provision about criminal records; to disregard convictions and cautions for certain abolished offences; to make provision about the release and publication of datasets held by public authorities and to make other provision about freedom of information and the Information Commissioner; to repeal certain enactments; and for connected purposes.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 146) with explanatory notes (Bill 146 -EN).

Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill

Second Reading

Harriett Baldwin: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	As a new Member, I drew No. 7 in the private Members' Bill ballot. Some might think that it is great foolhardiness to have chosen to raise the knotty constitutional issue of the West Lothian question in the House today, but it is with a great sense of privilege and trepidation that I today present a Bill that is designed to be extremely helpful to you, Mr Speaker, if you were ever asked to certify whether a particular piece of legislation applied to a particular part of the United Kingdom.
	Mr Speaker, you will be very aware that the question of Members voting on issues that do not affect their own constituencies has vexed many minds much more learned than mine for well over a century.

Chris Bryant: Why on earth would Mr Speaker be asked to adjudicate on whether something applied somewhere or did not?

Harriett Baldwin: That is an extremely important question. Mr Speaker has the ability, under Standing Order No. 97, to certify whether a particular piece of legislation applies only to Scotland. He already has the powers, and it will be extremely interesting today, during the debate on this legislation, to discuss whether those powers ought to be extended to further parts of the United Kingdom.
	The West Lothian question has vexed constitutional experts since the time of Gladstone, who first perceived the difficulties when Irish Home Rule was being discussed. At various times in the last century, the topic has been raised in the Chamber and in the other place, but it has always been parked in the car park for questions that are too difficult to resolve under our unwritten constitution.
	However, the following question is often raised with me by residents of my constituency, which I like to think represents the heart of middle England. How can it be right for it to be possible for potentially decisive pieces of legislation to be voted on in this place by, and carried by a majority of, Members of Parliament who are not legislating on behalf of their own constituents? That is not a question that we can carry on parking in that car park for ever. It is my intention with this Bill to edge the West Lothian question slightly closer to the car park exit.
	The Conservative party manifesto, on which I stood, said:
	"Labour have refused to address the so-called 'West Lothian Question': the unfair situation of Scottish MPs voting on matters which are devolved. A Conservative government will introduce new rules so that legislation referring specifically to England, or to England and Wales, cannot be enacted without the consent of MPs representing constituencies of those countries."
	Of course, the Conservative party did not win an overall majority, but in the coalition programme for government, the section on political reform states:
	"We will establish a commission to consider the 'West Lothian question'."
	On 26 October last year, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister in this Chamber when the commission would be established, and I was told that it would be established by the end of 2010. However, it became apparent on the final sitting day of 2010 that the commission had not been established, and I again put the question to my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), the Minister on duty, who said that
	"the Government will make an announcement on the commission in the new year. I am happy to confirm that we do indeed mean 2011. That is very much part of our programme for next year."-[ Official Report, 21 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 1338.]
	If nothing else, given the fragile life chances of private Members' Bills, I am pleased to use today's debate to encourage the Government to advance their own business.
	Over the last decade, devolution to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, which I wholeheartedly support, has meant that more and more legislation coming before the House affects different constituent parts of the United Kingdom in different ways. For example, at the moment the Health and Social Care Bill will apply essentially to England.

Chris Bryant: Essentially, but not exclusively.

Harriett Baldwin: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point about how difficult it is these days to identify which parts of the United Kingdom Bills will apply to, a problem that this Bill is intended to address. The hon. Gentleman will clearly support it.

Simon Hart: My hon. Friend will be aware that there will be a referendum on further powers for the Welsh Assembly in just a few weeks. If Wales votes in favour of those powers in the 20 areas of competence that the referendum covers, will that create a west Walean question?

Harriett Baldwin: My hon. Friend asks an important question, pointing out that devolution is an ongoing process. Indeed, the referendum in Wales on 3 March and the Scotland Bill will potentially change the decision-making process in this Chamber, so it is all the more important that the Bill is carried today.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Lady tell us whether she voted on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, which contains many provisions that will apply solely to Wales?

Harriett Baldwin: The hon. Gentleman is making extremely important points about how legislation currently before the House can mix up different issues and have different impacts on different parts of the United Kingdom. My Bill would make things clearer, with the result that parliamentary draftsmen would automatically start to make it clearer and much more distinct which parts of the United Kingdom Bills apply to. In addition, the Bill would allow legislation to continue to apply to different parts of the United Kingdom-all it says is, "Let's state that on the face of the Bill." Why should we not do that?

Christopher Chope: I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing this Bill. She describes the issue as complex. Does she understand why it is so complex that the Government have not even been able to set up a commission to look into it? Surely, that should not be beyond the capability of the Deputy Prime Minister. Has she been able to find out why that has not been done?

Harriett Baldwin: My hon. Friend asks a somewhat cheeky question. I am sympathetic to the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper)-a constituency neighbour of mine-has had a rather busy last couple of weeks. I am giving him a little slack because of that, but I agree that it is important to keep pressing for the establishment of the commission.
	The legislation on tuition fees will affect university students from England. It will create the awkward situation of Welsh and English students paying different fees to attend the same university. The Scotland Bill, which I mentioned earlier, will enhance the powers of the Scottish Executive in many instances, including their ability to vary tax rates. Therefore, Parliament and this truly reforming Government need to find a way to scrutinise legislation in such a way that Members, who have the best interests of their own constituents in mind, can play a greater role in the legislative process. This is an issue that we duck at our peril.

Heather Wheeler: I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing her Bill. I am sure that she, like me, receives letters weekly from her constituents asking, "When are you going to get on with the issue? It is just not fair for English constituents, taxpayers, ratepayers and voters."

Harriett Baldwin: I thank my hon. Friend for adding those supportive words from her constituents. I am sure that many hon. Members have had the issue raised with them from time to time.
	As I mentioned, the question has been looked at by many heads wiser than mine over the years, and I have benefited from extensive analysis from history of what has not worked. Therefore, I have avoided in the Bill any sense that I want to create two categories of MP at Westminster, which is where the private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter)-the House of Commons (Participation) Bill-ran into difficulty in the previous Parliament. Parliamentary privilege, which is MPs' ability to speak out or vote on any issue, is at the heart of our Parliament.
	I am a passionate supporter of the Union, and do not want to undermine it in any way with the Bill. My grandmother, of whom I have fond memories, was called Flora McLean McLeod Morison. She was born in Dunbar to a general practitioner who came from the Isle of Mull, so I am a flesh-and-blood embodiment of the Union myself. It is because I believe that not resolving this question would cause long-term harm to the Union that I urge the Government to support the Bill.
	What I found most helpful in preparing the Bill was the Conservative party's democracy taskforce, chaired by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who prepared a pamphlet called "Answering the Question". The Leader of the House, who was in the Chamber earlier, and my hon. Friends the Members for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) and for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) were also on the taskforce, so we are talking about some impressive brainpower. The taskforce's report looked at five main options for addressing the West Lothian question.
	The first option is the one that the previous Government took for the last decade, which essentially was to do nothing. That approach was best summarised by Lord Irvine's argument-that the best way to answer the West Lothian question was to stop asking it.

Chris Bryant: I think I saw a little partisanness sweep across the hon. Lady's eyes. To say that it is only the Government of the last 10 years who have done nothing about the issue is to ignore the last seven centuries, when no Government did anything about it.

Harriett Baldwin: I fully accept that the issue has been out there and unsolved for at least 100 years. However, I think that it was a deliberate strategy by the previous Government, as evidenced by Lord Irvine's statement. The do-nothing approach risks causing the same English alienation that Scottish devolution was designed to address for Scotland.
	A second approach to address the issue is through under-representation at Westminster for the parts of the UK that have their own Parliament, which is often known as the Stormont solution. During most of the 20th century there was a Northern Ireland Parliament at Stormont, and Northern Ireland sent only 11 Members of Parliament to Westminster when its population would have justified 17. That is another possible approach, but I do not think it is the right one. Also, it is completely at odds with the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, which brings a welcome equalisation of constituency sizes.
	A third option that people have mentioned is an English Parliament. There is a campaign group for this solution, but that approach leads to a plethora of questions. Would it require separate elections or a separate building? Would we have a First Minister for England? What if the First Minister for England was different from the Prime Minister? That solution would also be extremely expensive, and I do not think that the mood in the country is in favour of an additional layer of politicians. That approach could also lead to the formal break-up of the United Kingdom, so I have completely rejected it. A fourth approach, which, to be fair to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), was the one initially taken by the previous Government, is devolution to regional government, giving the English regions more constitutional power. However, that was rejected decisively in the 2004 referendum in the north-east.
	A fifth option, which has been on the table for some time, is something called English votes for English laws. Unfortunately, however, that would create two categories of MPs, leaving the Executive powerless to win votes on important public service issues. That was the approach taken by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset in his private Member's Bill, and was also the approach outlined in the 2001 and 2005 Conservative manifestos.

Andrea Leadsom: Does my hon. Friend not agree that at least that solution would appear to be fair? Many voters in this country would see it as the fair solution: if a particular piece of legislation did not affect their area, Members should not be able to vote on it.

Harriett Baldwin: That approach is one of those things that looks fair at first sight, but the more one looks at it, the more problems with it one perceives. For example, what if the Government of the day could not carry the Budget? The Finance Bill is something that the Government have to be able to carry, but if the make-up or majority in the English Parliament was different from that in the overall, national Parliament, how would we solve such conundrums? That is why I have not taken that approach in my Bill.
	The recommendation that I thought made the most sense was the one in the democracy taskforce publication, which proposed a lower-strength version of English votes for English laws. This proposal was that Bills be certified by the Speaker as English. They would pass through normal Commons processes as far as and including Second Reading, on which the whole House would vote. The Committee stage would be undertaken by English MPs in proportion to English party strengths. Report stage would be similarly voted on by English Members only, and Third Reading, when no amendments are possible, would again be voted on by the whole House. However, there are also problems with that approach, but it is those problems that my Bill seeks to solve.
	The problem was best expressed by lain MacLean of Nuffield college in his 2005 paper, in which he said:
	"It will be hard for the Speaker to define what is an English bill, at least to do so without controversy-the Speaker could be politicised".
	I would not want to put you in such an awkward position, Mr Speaker. Therefore, by requiring the Secretary of State to specify in draft legislation the territorial extent of a Bill, my expectation is that it would be much clearer in the drafting of Bills to which parts of the UK they applied. Indeed, the Clerk advises me that the Health and Social Care Bill, which was mentioned earlier and which, really, applies only to England, would be hard to certify as being an England-only Bill, because of the way in which it is drafted. What I hope my Bill would achieve, once it received Royal Assent, is gently to guide those drafting Her Majesty's legislation to be clear enough in that drafting so that you, Mr Speaker, would have no problem certifying Bills. Indeed, you already have the power, under Standing Order No. 97, to certify Bills as having regard to Scotland only. In the past, before devolution, that Standing Order was used quite often, which shows that there is a precedent for such certification and that it would not be beyond the wit of those much wiser than me to come up with some improvements on that Standing Order.

Andrew Bridgen: I thank my hon. Friend for indulging me. I wonder whether she would be willing to listen to my perhaps more simple solution to the West Lothian question, which is indeed a boil that needs lancing. If we got rid of Members of the Scottish Parliament and Members of the Welsh Assembly, and instead merely had elected MPs, then all MPs from across Great Britain could meet in this place on Mondays and Tuesdays to attend to British affairs, and then on Wednesdays, and perhaps Thursdays, they could return to the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly, or to Northern Ireland, leaving English MPs to attend to English matters in this place. Surely that would save the taxpayer a great deal of money and, by getting rid of so many politicians, be very popular in the country.

Harriett Baldwin: That is certainly an original approach, and one that, I must confess, I had not heard from any other source, so I very much appreciate my hon. Friend's putting it on the record. I said at the beginning of my speech that I am very much in favour of devolution and allowing decisions that affect particular areas to be made at the lowest possible level of government. That is the theme of localisation, so although my hon. Friend has set out an original idea, I prefer what I have proposed in my Bill.
	To return to my point about Standing Order No. 97, in its 1999 report on the procedural consequences of devolution, the Select Committee on Procedure said that
	"the provision allowing the Speaker to certify Bills as relating exclusively to Scotland"
	could be
	"transferred to a new Standing Order and adapted so that the Speaker may certify that a bill relates exclusively to one of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom."
	Further to that, Standing Orders Nos. 102 and 106 allow legislation to be referred to a Welsh Grand Committee. However, we are now touching on issues that have gone far above my pay grade, although they are issues that would be there for the House to agree once my Bill had received Royal Assent.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am not quite sure how we get from my hon. Friend's Bill to the legislative programme that she is suggesting. Is the idea that this would be done exclusively through the Standing Orders of this House, and that we would therefore change the structures of the passing of legislation purely on our Standing Orders?

Harriett Baldwin: My Bill has deliberately shied away from being prescriptive in that area. Our constitution has a capacity to evolve and adapt to changing circumstances in a way that does not need to be written down in legislation, so my Bill stops at the point where the draft legislation outlines which parts of the United Kingdom it affects. It would then be for us, through House procedures, to look at the ways in which the new legislation would permit the House to treat different Bills in different ways.
	I have touched on the purpose of the Bill, but there are other provisions that are worth highlighting. The Bill would establish a principle of legislative clarity, which would mean that citizens and Members of Parliament would have the right to see how proposed changes to the law would affect them or their constituents. There is also flexibility built into the Bill, so that if it is not possible for the Secretary of State to affirm that the draft legislation is compatible with those principles, the Government can still make a statement that they wish to proceed anyway. I am sure that no one in the Chamber could possibly object to this new level of transparency in our legislation.
	The Bill also calls for a separate statement-a financial memorandum-on the financial implications of legislation on the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. Again, this is designed to be helpful to you, Mr Speaker, by making any financial effects of legislation-for example, via the Barnett formula-clear and unambiguous. It is often argued that, because of the Barnett formula, it is impossible to achieve granularity when it comes to the impact of legislation on England. The financial statement would therefore allow the question of whether that was the case to be transparent.
	In bringing my remarks to a close, I simply point out that the Bill is both minor and entirely unobjectionable. In fact, it is so innocuous that I am sure all hon. Members in the Chamber today will support not only its aims but its intentions, and that they will all wave through its Second Reading. I am sure that the Government will have no issue with the intended consequences of the Bill, although they may have some drafting issues with the unintended consequences, on which I would welcome their input in Committee. This Bill is necessary to create a strong foundation on which the House can make progress on addressing the important issues of territorial extent, and I commend it to the House.

Malcolm Rifkind: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) on what she has said today. This is an historic moment. West Worcestershire has taken up the cudgels on the West Lothian question, and I very much welcome her comments. I have taken an interest in these issues for a long time. I first entered the House in 1974, and when Margaret Thatcher became leader of our party, she was kind enough to appoint me as a junior spokesman on devolution. I have therefore had to take some views on these matters. I am now the Member for Kensington, but my primary home remains in Scotland, outside Edinburgh in East Lothian. Later, I will offer what might immodestly be referred to as an East Lothian answer to the West Lothian question.
	I have no doubt that the consequences of devolution represent unfinished business. Over the past 12 years, we have witnessed the single biggest constitutional change in the United Kingdom since the Act of Union in 1707-

Chris Bryant: What about 1801?

Malcolm Rifkind: It was far more important than what happened in 1801, which turned out to be a blip in the constitutional history of the UK. What we are seeing now is a permanent change. It has not destroyed the United Kingdom, but it has undoubtedly created a new kind of United Kingdom. That has constitutional implications, as well as implications for fairness. I suspect that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) would suggest that, since Stormont, we have lived with the fact of Members from Northern Ireland being able to vote on all the measures in this House despite the fact that their own constituencies might not be affected by them. There is a de minimis issue that we can sometimes live with, but we now have something quite different, particularly if the Welsh approve an extension of the legislative powers of their Assembly in their referendum.
	We will have a situation in which not 11 but approximately 100 Members of this House from three of the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom will be able to vote on issues that do not affect their own constituents. There will be only one part of the UK that does not have that right. Rather curiously, having dominated the United Kingdom, by numbers, since the Act of Union in 1707, England will become the one part of the UK whose elected representatives do not, by themselves, have the final say on matters that affect purely their constituents. That will no longer be the case for Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, but paradoxically it will have become so for England. Talking about 100 Members, rather than 11, is not a minimal side issue; it goes to the very heart not only of constitutional propriety but of fairness. My remarks today will be about fairness rather than constitutions, because that is the fundamental principle of our political system, and the implications of these arrangements are significant.
	We must not get this out of proportion, however. I do not believe that it is right to imply that, as a consequence of devolution, this place has effectively become an English Chamber because the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish have very little continuing involvement here as a result of the big areas that have been devolved to their own Parliaments in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. That is a gross exaggeration. If we look at the whole scope of government, we see that the UK Government and Parliament still have either sole or predominant responsibility for massive swaths of policy. The most important issues facing any Government are those of taxation. At this moment, virtually all tax powers reside with the United Kingdom Parliament, and all Members of Parliament from every part of the kingdom have an equal interest in and responsibility for those matters. The largest budget of the British Government is the social security budget, and that is a United Kingdom budget. It does not differentiate in any material way between north and south of the border.

Bob Stewart: I thank my right hon. and learned, and very old, Friend for giving way- [ Laughter. ] I mean "old" in the sense of time. We are both of a certain age.

Malcolm Rifkind: Speak for yourself!

Bob Stewart: He is no longer my friend. I always used to respect him. Does he think that there will be increased pressure to give more tax-raising powers not only to Scotland in the Scotland Bill but to the Welsh Assembly and to Stormont?

Malcolm Rifkind: Such proposals are under deliberation and likely to go forward. That could mean a reduction in the block grant to Scotland, if it were to raise a proportionate sum through its own decisions. This is an evolving situation, a dynamic constitutional process. I cannot predict, any more than anyone else, where that process might lead, but for the foreseeable future the UK Government will retain responsibility for virtually all tax responsibilities, as well as for the social security budget, all foreign affairs, all defence policy, all European Union issues, all trade policy, all electoral matters such as those we discussed yesterday, and a whole host of other issues. So we must not imply that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Members have a diminished interest in the affairs of this Parliament.
	It is sometimes suggested that it is quite improper, in this post-devolution situation, for a Member from Scotland, Wales or wherever to be appointed as a Minister in a Department whose responsibilities cover only England. Criticisms were made of John Reid when he became Health Secretary in the previous Government because he represented a Scottish constituency. We should not think of that as a constitutional issue, but it might be politically stupid to make such an appointment because of the controversy that it will give rise to, enabling criticism to be made. There is no lack of precedent for such decisions being made in other contexts, however. During the Conservative Governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, every Secretary of State for Wales represented an English constituency. There has never been a Northern Ireland Secretary who comes from Northern Ireland, for obvious reasons with which we are all familiar. Let us not suggest that that is a constitutional problem. It is a political problem, and Prime Ministers have to decide whether it is sensible to appoint Ministers from constituencies that are not affected by the decisions of the Department of which they will be in charge. It is against that background that we are considering the question of voting in this Parliament.

Stewart Jackson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we have institutionalised a sense of resentment and unfairness by not giving greater fiscal autonomy and tax-raising powers to the devolved Governments? That sense of unfairness does not exist in other devolved systems, such as the federal system in the United States, in which each state can raise its own taxes, and there is no feeling of resentment towards the central Government.

Malcolm Rifkind: I return to my point that this should be seen as an evolving situation. We speak of devolution to the three other parts of the United Kingdom, but the devolution is different in each case. We have a power-sharing institutionalised system in Northern Ireland, which does not exist anywhere else. We have a Scottish Parliament that is an Executive with full legislative powers over devolved matters. Wales does not have a Parliament; it has an Assembly that does not yet have legislative powers. In each case, the arrangements will change, but they will change in response to experience and to what are perceived to be the political wishes of the people in the territories concerned. That is the history of the United Kingdom. We are blessed with an unwritten constitution that we can evolve and adapt over the generations in a way that goes no further than necessary but that responds to the aspirations of the peoples in the various parts of the kingdom in a sensible and coherent way.
	I shall turn now to the consequences of those arrangements for voting in this Parliament. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire so eloquently said, a range of options has been proposed to deal with what has become known as the West Lothian question. Some of them are completely understandable, including the proposal that, if there is a Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish Parliament, there should be an English one. That sounds completely logical, but I was once warned that logic was the art of going wrong with confidence. It is, in fact, absurd to contemplate the co-existence of an English Parliament with this Palace of Westminster, for several reasons.
	First of all, to state an emotional and political fact-I say this with some caution-the vast majority of people in England think that there is already an English Parliament and that it is called the House of Commons, largely because of the history of this place and its origins many centuries ago. When such an option is occasionally raised, we are not talking only about two Parliaments. In practice, there would have to be two Governments; there would have to be an English Government just as there is a Scottish Government. The idea that that is a sensible way of dealing with these matters is foolish. It would be a sledgehammer to crack an important but nevertheless modest nut-foolish, as I say.
	The second option-one of the bad options-was attractive to many of my hon. Friends during the previous Parliament. It is the idea that Scottish Members-and, one assumes, Welsh and Northern Ireland Members either now or in due course-would be vetoed or prevented from voting on issues that applied only to England. I have always thought that that is a very dangerous and unwise approach. It would manifestly create two classes of Member of Parliament for the very first time since the Act of Union in 1707, and therefore I can only describe it as a nationalist solution to a Unionist problem. I have no doubt that it would be welcomed by the nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales, because it would provide a constant opportunity for them to emphasise the increasing irrelevance of the Union, as they would see it, and to go much further than the vast majority of people throughout the United Kingdom would currently want. It is not sensible to contemplate having two classes of Member, although not because it could not work. Here I disagree with the hon. Member for Rhondda: it is not a matter of the technical problems, although I can come on to those in moment if he wants me to; rather, I believe that it would be hugely dangerous and, in any event, it is unnecessary.
	If those options are unattractive, is there an alternative route to resolve these matters and to deal with the issue of fairness? We do not need a solution that is absolutely perfect in every constitutional respect that fits seamlessly into some web of other issues; we need something that resolves the problem and removes a sense of unfairness.
	At one stage, I argued for having an English Grand Committee, to which English-only Bills would be sent. It could be a Committee of all English Members sitting in this Chamber, but only those on such a Committee would be able to vote, just as members of Select Committees are the only people able to vote on them. That would not, in itself, be constitutionally improper. I acknowledge, however, that that would be quite a complicated innovation, which would take a complex series of thoughts to resolve and could take years in practice to implement.
	In any event, there is a much simpler alternative-one that has not thus far been mentioned-and I shall put it forward. I would strongly argue that the most simple and straightforward solution relates to when a Bill is certified by the Speaker, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire indicates, as applying only to England. Doing that, incidentally, is not difficult. Many Bills currently affect England and Scotland or England, Scotland and Wales, because there is no reason at the moment for the draftsmen not to draft them in that way, if it suits their drafting objectives. If the rules change and the draftsmen are required to restrict any Bill to that part of the kingdom to which it overwhelmingly applies, they can draft accordingly if instructed to do so.
	Where a Bill applies only to England, the right way to resolve matters would be to say that before it can be approved on Second and Third Reading, it must achieve not only the majority of votes of the whole House but, subsumed within that, a majority of Members representing English constituencies. In other words, a double majority is required: a majority of the House as a whole and a majority of those representing English constituencies. If it does not meet that target, it cannot be deemed to have been approved on Second Reading. The attraction is that no hon. Member is prevented from speaking in the debate or from voting in the Division Lobby for or against the measure, but the question of whether an England-only Bill goes forward and is given a Second Reading will have been determined by the House to be dependent on a majority of Members from English constituencies voting for it.

Harriett Baldwin: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way and also for sharing his enormous wisdom on this topic with the House. Does he agree that the Scotland legislation of the 1970s included a provision made by the Lords for a 14-day waiting period, in which something like what he is describing would apply? What does he think of that particular approach?

Malcolm Rifkind: Yes, that is indeed one approach. We are always reminding ourselves that this country has a sovereign Parliament. The idea that a sovereign Parliament cannot determine that certain classes of legislation will not go through unless there is a double majority of the kind that I have described is absurd. Of course it can do that if it wishes; it is entirely within its power. It is simply a political judgment as to whether that is the right way forward.
	I shall not speak for much longer, but I want to address one fundamental challenge that will be made-it has already been made-to any of the solutions that have been described. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Rhondda will raise this suggestion. It is constantly said that the problem with all these approaches is that if a Government were denied the use of all the votes of their supporters that would usually give them a majority, the whole business of government would become unworkable and the Government would be unable to get their programme through, which would create some sort of constitutional crisis. To be fair, that argument is not made only by Labour Members. Mr Vernon Bogdanor, for example, who we are often told is a great constitutional expert, has constantly opined that that is a fundamental flaw in any such approach. Although I can understand why the Labour party adopts that view, because there is a political interest in putting forward such an argument, I find it very difficult to understand why such a learned gentleman has come to this conclusion-and I hope that he reads this speech.

Chris Bryant: The right hon. and learned Gentleman might like to know that Mr Bogdanor was the tutor of the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper).

Malcolm Rifkind: I have no doubt that he was. Eric Anderson was the headmaster who taught Tony Blair, but I do not think that either could be held responsible for the other; each must come to their own judgments on these matters.
	I come to the central point about the accusation that government would become unworkable. It is not just my view, my opinion or my theory that that is nonsense. We know from our own history that it is a ludicrous argument; it is exactly what happens every time we have a hung Parliament. When there is such a Parliament, as there was between 1974 and 1979, there will be many occasions when Governments cannot get their legislation through. It does not necessarily mean the collapse of the Government unless it is on some fundamental issue of confidence. What happens is that Governments either have to withdraw the proposal or discuss it with their opponents and table amendments to make it more acceptable. That is also exactly what happens between the House of Commons and the House of Lords from time to time. It is what happens in the United States all the time. The current President of the US does not have a majority in Congress, so he can never be certain of getting any legislation through. The argument that a British Government would somehow find themselves in an unworkable and unacceptable situation because not all but some of their English-only legislation was so controversial that a majority of English Members could not be persuaded to vote for it and that that would create chaos in the workings of government is manifestly ludicrous. That argument cannot be put forward in any credible way.

Christopher Chope: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his wisdom. Has he yet been approached by the Deputy Prime Minister to serve on this committee, which is yet to be set up? Surely, his service on that commission would be really useful.

Malcolm Rifkind: I suspect that my hon. Friend's intervention has guaranteed that that will not happen. In any event, I would rather give evidence to the committee than serve on it. We will have to wait and see.
	Finally, it is the essence of a parliamentary system of government that Governments must not assume that they can always get their business through. They will occasionally be defeated and, if they believe that the issue is fundamental, they can ask for a motion of confidence to enable them to survive. It is not a barrier to the kind of change that I and others have recommended to say that a Government might from time to time have to amend or withdraw their proposals because they lacked parliamentary consent. The parliamentary consent is what matters, not the Government's wishes.

Andrew Bridgen: May I drag my right hon. and learned Friend back to a point he made earlier in his eloquent speech? He said that he did not wish to create two classes of MP. Indeed, there is only one class of MP in this place. However, do we not already have two classes of MPs in our constituencies, because the work load of English MPs is far higher than that of Members in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland- [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) makes a sedentary comment, but if the work load of MPs in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is not less than that of English MPs, what are the devolved Governments doing and what is their purpose?

Malcolm Rifkind: I know the point my hon. Friend is making, and it has some validity, but he takes the argument too far. Certainly, the constituency correspondence with which a Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland Member deals must be substantially less, as many issues that the rest of us have drawn to our attention would be a matter for the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly or Northern Ireland Assembly. Nature abhors a vacuum, however, and none of us has enough time to do all the things that we would like to do in this Parliament. Although many of our Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish colleagues might not have as much work of that kind, I assume that that gives them more time, if they so wish, to take part in debates on wider, national issues and on matters that affect their constituents. It is not as if they sit around wondering, "How should I spend my day?" The naturally indolent may be in that position and enjoying every moment, and that is for our constituents to come to a judgment on, but a good Member of Parliament never has a shortage of legitimate matters, affecting constituents in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, to occupy their time.
	I conclude more or less where I began: let us not get too involved in constitutional proprieties. The essence of the British constitution is its flexibility and ability to evolve to meet changing circumstances. When, for the first time since the Act of Union, three of the four component parts of the kingdom have their own Parliament or Assembly, the principle of fairness is paramount. The approach that I have suggested would meet that requirement in a fairly simple and straightforward way. There may be other solutions, but it is important to recognise that a solution is needed, and the quicker we achieve it the better.

Chris Bryant: I welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), who has not been in the House long and yet already has managed to grasp firmly with both hands the nettle of one of the more complicated constitutional matters that has faced the country, I would say, for considerably longer than she suggested. It achieved a name, and once something has a name it achieves greater prominence-because of Irish Home Rule. However, when we first started binding together the different bits of the Union, there were profound discussions about how many Members of Parliament of both Houses should be from each of the constituent parts. To all intents and purposes, that was a very similar debate.
	I was with the hon. Lady for part of her contribution, but then she took us to the Welsh Grand Committee. Anyone who suggests that that is an answer to anything, I am afraid, has completely lost me. My experience of the Welsh grandstanding Committee is that, for the most part, it is not as useful as it might seem to those who do not have to attend it.

Harriett Baldwin: Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that the Bill stops well short of such Committees, and would be a simple and innocuous piece of legislation that he could wholeheartedly support?

Chris Bryant: Was it Socrates-I cannot remember-who said that a small book was always a bad book? Sometimes a simple and innocuous-looking piece of legislation can do the most pernicious damage. I will come on to whether I think it is innocuous later.
	It is always great to hear the right hon. and learned-and gallant, and doubtless many other things besides- [Laughter.] Other words, which he might not like so much, are coming to mind now. It is always difficult not to think of the right hon. and learned Member for East Lothian-sorry, for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind)-as a Scottish MP, and I suppose that in many regards he still is, but he is a Scottish MP for an English seat. Several hon. Members think that I am an English Member for a Welsh seat, but I am thoroughly Welsh, and Jeremy Paxman had to apologise when he maintained, in his latest book, that I was not.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to maintain that Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish Members of Parliament have no diminished role just because of devolution. In many debates, they bring a specific interest and point of view that adds to the whole equation. The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), who has departed the scene, said that Wales and Scotland MPs must, by definition, have less casework, which is certainly not my experience. If anything, many constituents, in the process of trying to achieve redress for their individual concern, try to play the Assembly Member off against the Member of Parliament. As the Welsh Assembly also has regional Members, my experience is that those from other political parties who failed to be elected in constituencies end up trying to play a semi-constituency role. Often, that leads to a considerable enhancement of the amount of work done. I make no complaint about that, but I think that those who assume, from their English seat, that a Welsh Assembly and a Scottish Parliament result in Welsh and Scottish MPs having less casework, are wrong.
	There are many different kinds of casework. There is casework such as a miners compensation scheme, with which thousands of people want help going through the legal process. Then there is casework such as, "I think it's an absolute outrage that you ever thought of voting for this piece of legislation." I get very little of the latter and a lot of the former. In different constituencies around the land, some Members have a lot of immigration cases. I have had only about three immigration cases during my time as a Member of Parliament. Casework varies between constituencies, and it is not appropriate to legislate directly in relation to that.

Stewart Jackson: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that, with constituencies in Scotland and Wales having significantly smaller electorates than those in England, list system Members, devolved Parliament Members and MPs, such MPs have the same work loads as English constituency Members? If so, does he have any academic evidence to support that, because I am quite sceptical?

Chris Bryant: I think "Sceptical" might be the hon. Gentleman's middle name. I see he is smiling-I have managed to get a smile out of him; that must be a first. He is now trying not to smile. Now he is laughing.
	The only point I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that there is no academic evidence, and probably never will be. All that we have is anecdotal evidence. I merely offer my own evidence-I have not seen my work load diminish compared with that of my predecessor, who did not have a Welsh Assembly to contend with. The hon. Gentleman is right that a constituency with a smaller number of people might mean that the Member concerned has fewer people contacting them, but it might also mean that access to the Member for constituents is more difficult and that it involves considerable travelling around the constituency. Anyway, that is a matter for a different debate.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington referred to the issue of whether there should be an English Parliament. He is right to argue that there is a danger that we would end up with two Governments. Who would take possession of Downing street? Presumably, we would have a set of English Ministers, in addition to British Ministers, and so on. I am not sure that is the direction in which British voters want to go. The hon. Member for West Worcestershire referred to the fact that on the one occasion when we had a referendum on whether there should be devolved responsibilities within the English regions, people decided, largely because they did not want more politicians, not to go down that route.
	In parenthesis, let me say briefly that I hear regularly, not from the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington but from others, that this is the mother of Parliaments. I again say that John Bright meant that England was the mother of Parliaments and that it was a very difficult and complicated birth. The effortless English superiority that sometimes arises in these debates is unfortunate.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to Wales, and I was reminded of a story, which may not be apocryphal, of Charlotte Church singing before George W. Bush when he was President-a meeting of two great minds, obviously.
	When Charlotte Church was introduced to the President, he asked, "Where are you from?" She said, "Wales." He asked, "What state is that in?" , and she said "Terrible." Discussions about issues such as this are not always informed by great intelligence.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the possibility of an English Grand Committee. It has been suggested in the past that such a Committee should sit in the Chamber, because it would obviously have a significant number of members. During the last Parliament we discussed the possibility of regional Grand Committees and arguments were presented both for and against the idea, but it has fallen by the wayside.
	I am not convinced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument in favour of a requirement for a double majority. Neither House has ever operated a system of secondary mandates.

Malcolm Rifkind: So what?

Chris Bryant: It is true that innovation is sometimes a good thing, but I think that it would lead to confusion in this instance.
	I am afraid that I am going to disappoint the right hon. and learned Gentleman now. He expected me to argue that a Government who lost a piece of legislation would fall, but I am not going to argue that at all. In fact, the danger is that as we move towards an elected second Chamber-and over the past few weeks we have seen both sides of the second Chamber behaving almost exactly like an elected Chamber-we will reach a point at which there will be absolutely no check on the power of the Executive. There will be no check by virtue of the time that the second Chamber can take to delay legislation, and no check in this House because, by definition, the Government have a majority. We may have to address that problem through the way in which we interpret the Standing Orders of the House.

Malcolm Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to say that he does not think that a double-majority requirement would create an unworkable situation for the Government. The only argument-in fact, it is not even an argument, but just a word-that he has used to indicate his reason for opposing such a requirement is that it would cause "confusion". What does he mean by that?

Chris Bryant: I shall deal later with an issue that relates directly to the point of the Bill, and I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will then understand why I believe there is a problem.  [Interruption.] He is now confused, but I hope that I shall be able to rescue him from his confusion in a moment or two.
	As I said to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, this is an age-old issue. There is a meretricious argument, which the hon. Lady steered away from today-although she dangled it in front of us a little bit-that it is patently absurd for Members whose constituents will not be affected by an individual piece of legislation to be able to vote on it. That is, at any rate, a paraphrase of something that she said. My response is "All that glisters is not gold."
	If we decide that Members can vote only on matters that affect their constituents directly-or even indirectly, I suppose-we end up with the question of who runs the country. At any one moment, on any one piece of legislation, there is uncertainty, and in the case of Finance Bills in particular there is a real problem. The issue is not just what the Government propose, but what Members can or cannot amend. Some money Bills have effect only in England, but the danger is that a money Bill could be amended in a way that caused it to have an implication elsewhere.

Harriett Baldwin: Can the hon. Gentleman give me an example of a money Bill that might affect only England? I am not sure that my research has identified one.

Chris Bryant: There are money Bills attached to many pieces of legislation. There will be money Bills in relation to the education Bill and the national health service Bill, for instance. However, I think that the hon. Lady is referring to Finance Bills. It is true that the vast majority of Finance Bills have implications throughout the United Kingdom, although obviously there will be modifications in relation to Scotland if the Scotland Bill is passed. Elements of a future Finance Bill would not apply in Scotland. Indeed, elements of a Finance Bill today already do not apply in Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales.
	My second point is that it is phenomenally difficult to be clear about what constitutes the territorial extent not just of a particular piece of legislation, but of its transition through the House. It would seem on the face of it that, for instance, the Bill that became the Health Act 2006 was purely an England Bill. Most people would consider that to be the case. The Bill made provision in relation to smoke-free premises, the purpose being to ban smoking in public places in England. On 14 February 2006 the House debated new clause 5, which replaced the original clause 3. It provided that
	"The appropriate national authority may make regulations providing for specified descriptions of premises, or specified areas within specified descriptions of premises, not to be smoke-free".
	It then listed a series of places that might be exempted. Subsection (5), for example, stated:
	"If both a club premises certificate and a premises licence authorising the consumption of alcohol on the premises have effect in respect of any premises, those premises are to be treated for the purposes of this section as if only the premises licence had effect".

Andrea Leadsom: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant: I will, but I shall want to return to my specific argument.

Andrea Leadsom: I thank the hon. Gentleman. Given that the whole purpose of the Bill is to make clearer in legislation exactly what different legislative proposals relate to in terms of the geographical area of the United Kingdom, surely his argument is one in favour of the Bill.

Chris Bryant: No, it is an argument against it. I remember clearly the rows that took place in both the Chamber and the Clerk's Office about whether the way in which the amendments to a health Bill were being selected would mean that Wales was or was not covered. Because most Members wanted to remove the provision that would allow the Secretary of State to exempt private members' clubs in England, they actually removed the provision that allowed an exemption for private members' clubs in Wales. It may well be that the Welsh Assembly would have wanted to do that itself anyway, but it had no choice. It could not make such a provision. I can tell the hon. Lady that that row was quite vociferous.
	My point is this: I do not think it is possible to be clear. The original legislation might be clear, but people might want to amend it, and why should they not be able to do so? If the parliamentary draftspeople say, "This Bill will cover only England", the number of Bills going through the House will have to be doubled, if not trebled, because there will have to be a separate Wales Bill and a separate Scotland Bill.

Harriett Baldwin: With the greatest respect, surely in such circumstances it would be necessary only to say, "This Bill applies to all three areas." My Bill provides for flexibility in order to avoid precisely the kind of row that the hon. Gentleman has described.

Chris Bryant: But who gets to decide the interpretation of what applies and what does not apply? That is the problem. A series of issues arises. A decision is made by parliamentary draftspeople, or Clerks, or the Speaker. That would bring them into the debate, which would be a mistake.
	I want to give the reason why I think the Bill is being introduced. Although it is fascinating to know the territorial extent of any Bill or clause, the only purpose of knowing that must surely be, as the hon. Lady said, to ensure that Members of the House vote only on legislation that directly affects them. That is a misguided intention. In practice, that would mean that we ended up with more Bills, and Second and Third Readings and Committee stages. If we decide that English MPs can vote only on English legislation, who will vote on Welsh clauses? Just Welsh MPs? Would only Welsh MPs be able to attend the Committee to take the Bill through? I think that we have never had a Welsh Secretary of State for Wales under a Conservative Government, although I may be wrong. We would have to allow the Minister to sit on the Committee but they would not be able to vote on their own legislation, which seems patently absurd.

Harriett Baldwin: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is missing the whole point. Obviously, legislation will have different effects in different parts of the UK. That will be spelt out in the legislation. All the issues that he is raising are complete red herrings that the Bill would address.

Chris Bryant: No, I honestly think that the hon. Lady is completely naive in relation to this matter. She said at the beginning of her speech that she thought that it was a fundamental principle that MPs should be able to vote only on those things that affect their constituents. That is the only purpose of having such a provision in any legislation. If she introduces a piece of legislation or a Standing Order-I will come to parliamentary privilege in a moment-that would require MPs not to vote on a piece of legislation, or that would shame people into not voting on a piece of legislation, she will create a real problem. If we assert that only English MPs can take part in the proceedings on English legislation, table amendments, amend Bills, seek to speak and vote on that legislation-that is where her Bill is driving us-there will be a problem for English legislation, not least because large numbers of Scottish and Welsh MPs have been English Ministers dealing with largely English matters. There are and have been Scottish and Welsh Ministers in, for example, the Department of Health and the Department for Education who have largely dealt with matters that refer only to England.

Andrea Leadsom: People in the country do not want to see Scottish MPs voting as Ministers on English-only legislation. Surely the hon. Gentleman can see that there is a fairness issue. It is surely not a bad thing if people might be shamed into feeling that they cannot represent English-only issues if they are a Scottish MP, and by the way, the Bill is not proposing that.

Chris Bryant: I think that the hon. Lady has just let the cat out of the bag. That is the whole point of her argument, is it not? There is no other reason to introduce such as measure. The only reason is to shame people. That is what the hon. Lady wants to do. I think that she is effectively saying that she does not want me as a Welsh MP to vote on anything that she believes to be an English-only matter. Is that what she believes?

Andrea Leadsom: Is the hon. Gentleman asking me or my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin)?

Chris Bryant: Sorry, I am slightly cross-eyed. I meant the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom).

Andrea Leadsom: This is obviously my hon. Friend's Bill. She is not proposing any such legislation. She is merely proposing to clarify the territorial extent of any Bill that goes through the House. For my own part, in direct answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, I think that it is unfair to you, as a Welsh Member representing Welsh interests, voting on English-only interests, or indeed being a Minister for English-only interests. That is my personal opinion and I would not like you to attribute that to my hon. Friend whose Bill this is. She is not making that proposal.

Mr Speaker: Order. May I gently point out that I have been accused of many things but not of being a Welsh Member?

Chris Bryant: Although I am sure that you would not mind, Mr Speaker. It is not a libel. It is not like being called an English Member when you are not an English Member. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] We lost badly in the rugby last week so we are still somewhat wounded on these matters.
	I recognise that the hon. Member for West Worcestershire has dressed her Bill up so that it does not look like it is moving in that direction, but many Members might only support the Bill because they want it to move in that direction. As I said earlier, I understand that some people are concerned about the issue in the country. However, I cannot think of a single Parliament in the world, including Spain and many other countries-this is not the only argument that I would use in relation to this-where there is asymmetric devolution and MPs cannot vote on every piece of legislation that is brought before them. As the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington said, to go down that route is a nationalist argument-not as in British nationalist, but as in Welsh, Scottish or Irish nationalist-and will unpick the Union in the end. Therefore, if the hon. Member for West Worcestershire really believes in the Union, it is a bit difficult to advance that argument.

Harriett Baldwin: As I said earlier, it is because of that belief that it is important that we have clarity in our legislation about which parts of the UK it affects. Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that we have to just continue to park the issue and not address it, thus undermining the Union?

Chris Bryant: I would like to see the issue addressed in different ways-as it has been addressed in other countries. For example, the role of the second Chamber needs to be looked at. It has been embarrassing that the vast majority of people who have been appointed to the second Chamber in the past few years have been from London and the south-east of England. That is almost inevitable when we have an appointments system. I would prefer to move to an elected system, where we had more people representing the whole of the UK. It might be possible to devise a better answer to the West Lothian question through reform of the second Chamber on an elected basis.
	However, as the hon. Lady has said, the whole business of parliamentary privilege comes into play. It has been a fundamental assumption from when the first commoners were allowed to attend parliamentary proceedings under Simon de Montfort in 1258 that grievances that they presented on behalf of the people should be able to be presented without any difference between one and the other Members.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: rose-

Chris Bryant: I thought that going back to the 13th century might stimulate the hon. Gentleman.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The right of shires to send people for address of grievance pre-dates Simon de Montfort. It is the boroughs that came in at that point.

Chris Bryant: Simon de Montfort invited four knights from each of the shires and six from Yorkshire in 1258 to present in Parliament their grievances on behalf of others. We do not know that all the knights attended. Of the ones who did attend, we only know that because they presented expenses and had them paid, so this problem has been with us since Mauge Vavasour had his payments made in Michaelmas 1258. It was a significant moment. The burgesses obviously arrived after 1258, though earlier in the 13th century there were occasions when some burgesses from the Cinque ports were invited, and some from those cities where there were a large number of Jewish residents were brought to Parliament to debate specific issues.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The knights of the shires came much earlier than that-they come from the reign of Richard I. That is attested thoroughly.

Chris Bryant: Well, not all 37 shires had representation, and they certainly did not have that as of right. I am perfectly happy to debate this at another time, but for now Mr Speaker has got that slightly fascinated but also slightly irritated face on.
	It would be very dangerous to dismantle the fundamental principle of the equality of all Members of this House. That is why I think that, in the end, the direction of travel the hon. Member for West Worcestershire is moving in with this Bill is an unfortunate one.

Harriett Baldwin: Let me reiterate once again that none of the concerns the hon. Gentleman is raising apply to the Bill.

Chris Bryant: As I have said, legislation is about not just what it does, but the declaratory effect that it has. The hon. Lady referred to the intended consequences of her Bill, but it would also have unintended consequences. As her colleague, the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), has already in effect told us, press releases will be sent out the moment the Bill comes into force condemning some Members for taking part in debates and votes on matters that the Bill declares as being for England only. I presume that there would also be condemnation of English MPs taking part in debates and votes on legislation that applies only to Wales. If we are going to reduce the number of Members of Parliament for Wales to 30, it will be difficult to take such legislation through effectively if there are not enough Back Benchers to be able to make proper informed decisions about the measures under discussion. The direction of travel the hon. Member for West Worcestershire is taking us down is unfortunate.
	I also think there will be unfortunate direct consequences, in that the number of Bills will increase, which will make things more difficult for us, and the number of clauses will also increase. We will end up with worse legislation because, as the hon. Lady has said, draftsmen will be required to try to provide absolute clarity that measures apply specifically to England, for example, or to Wales alone.

Damian Hinds: rose -

Chris Bryant: That was going to be my last sentence, but I will allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene.

Damian Hinds: Have any of these adverse effects arisen as a result of the current statement of territorial extent?

Chris Bryant: Which specific declaration is the hon. Gentleman referring to?

Damian Hinds: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "declaration" as I am relatively new to all this, but Bills currently have a statement of territorial extent, yet I am not aware of certain Members being shamed into not commenting on them.

Chris Bryant: Such declarations do not specify whether a Bill is exclusively English, Welsh or Northern Irish, or applies to all four territories or just two-or whatever. There has not been a problem thus far, and that is why I do not think there is any reason to make changes through legislation. I am even more sceptical about this Bill than the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) normally is about everything. If it proceeds to Second Reading, we will want to scrutinise and amend it robustly. As other Members have revealed, there are major problems with these measures that the hon. Member for West Worcestershire has not considered.

Iain Stewart: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) on introducing the Bill. As we have heard, the question it addresses has excited people throughout history. I will not add to the exchange about history between the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), but in its current guise the question has been around since the late 1970s, when Tam Dalyell, the former Member for West Lothian, posed it during deliberations on the Scotland Bill in 1977, although I believe it was Enoch Powell who coined the phrase "the West Lothian question" during those debates.
	Like the Barnett formula, this question is one of the perennial issues in respect of devolution. I often ask myself why that is the case. Should we simply not ask the question any more, as Lord Irvine has suggested? Is this just a constitutional nicety that we should ignore? The answer to that is that if left answered, the question would gnaw away at the bonds that hold the Union together. I am a Unionist and the last thing I ever want to see is the Union of our United Kingdom being ripped up. That is why we must turn our minds to finding an answer to this question. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire rightly said that Members representing English constituencies get lobbied by our constituents on why some Scottish Members vote on matters that apply only to England. I am not saying that that is the primary topic of conversation down the "Nut and Squirrel" every Friday night, but it does come up sometimes.

Iain Wright: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you have been in the Chair since the business of the House started this morning so you may not be aware that the High Court has just ruled in favour of the six local authorities who took the Secretary of State for Education to court over his Building Schools for the Future announcement. You will be aware, Mr Speaker, of the extent of the feeling on both sides of the House about this decision, and you will also appreciate the grave implications it will have for the policy of the Department for Education. It also calls into question the competence of the Secretary of State. Mr Speaker, have you received any notification that the Secretary of State will come to the House and explain the botched decision he made and say how he will move forward to make sure capital programmes for schools, including in my own constituency, will now be reinstated?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I have received no indication from any Minister at the Department for Education of an intention or desire to make a statement in the House today. It would, of course, be open to a Minister to do so however, and the hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record. It will have been heard by Members sitting on the Treasury Bench, including the Leader of the House, and I am sure there will be other opportunities fully to explore these matters in the days and weeks ahead.

Catherine McKinnell: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the significant financial implications of this decision, have you had any indication from a member of the Treasury ministerial team that they will come to address the House today on the matter?

Mr Speaker: No.

Iain Stewart: I was about to give an example of why it is still extremely valid to address the West Lothian question. Last May's general election did not produce a parliamentary majority for any one party, but it did produce a majority in England for the Conservative party; the Conservatives won a clear overall majority of the seats in England. I accept that no party commanded an overall majority so we had to proceed to a coalition Government, but an alternative coalition to the current one could have been found, such as the "rainbow option" of Labour Members, Liberal Democrats, nationalists, Ulster Members and independents. In that case, the people of England who had voted clearly for a Conservative Government would have been denied that Government, and we would, I think, have entered uncharted constitutional waters. I think there would have been a strong uprising in England on the basis that the will of the English voters had been thwarted. That situation did not arise, but it could have, so this is a very live issue.
	A similar situation may arise in this Parliament over a vote to reverse the ban on hunting. That ban applies only to England and Wales from a vote in this House, because the matter is devolved entirely to the Scottish Parliament. Let us suppose there was a clear majority among English and Welsh Members to reverse that ban, but in the House as a whole, with the addition of Scottish Members, there was a wish to keep the law as it is. Why should Scottish Members be able to influence the decision in England or in England and Wales? That situation could arise and, although it might not be the most dominant issue in our postbags, we have to provide for that eventuality.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Will he also consider what might happen in this review that we have been promised? What happens if the commission recommends changing the arrangements to answer the West Lothian question, but that is then unrepresentative of English opinion?

Iain Stewart: My hon. Friend raises an intriguing possibility. I hope that the commission does report, but we cannot move to a new arrangement without the agreement of those in the existing system; that is part of our process of constitutional evolution. I hope that we do get that commission and I gently encourage my Front-Bench colleagues to speed it up, because I will wholeheartedly support it.
	I wish to discuss an intriguing point made by a former Secretary of State for Scotland in the previous Government, Helen Liddell. It relates to a separate issue but it makes the argument well. When we were debating whether the United Kingdom should join the euro, the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), set out five tests by which we should judge whether it was appropriate for the United Kingdom to do so. She made the point that a sixth test should form part of the overall considerations, which was the opportunity cost of not joining: was there a cost to the United Kingdom of not joining the euro? Similarly, we should consider the opportunity cost of not addressing the West Lothian question because if it is left unchecked at some point it will come back to undermine the Union. As a Unionist, that is the last thing that I want. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) was correct to say that this is an evolutionary process. I did not have the benefit of being tutored by Professor Bogdanor, but I was always taught by the equally eminent Professor Michael Rush at the university of Exeter that the British constitution is a product of evolution, not revolution. We should proceed on that basis, but that should not preclude us from turning our minds to this issue.
	Theoretically, there are three perfect solutions to the West Lothian question, although I believe that we should reject them because they have other consequences that are either impractical or undesirable. The first option is that the Union ends, which is the wish of the Scottish National party, whose Members are clearly here in excessive number to debate this matter. They do have a perfect option, because under their solution the number of Scottish Members in this House would be zero and the West Lothian question would therefore not arise. However, for all sorts of economic, cultural and social reasons, I do not wish the Union to end.
	The second option is to go back to the arrangement that was in place before we had the Scottish Parliament, either by abolishing that Parliament or by following the intriguing suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) that Members of this House who represent Scottish constituencies should then form the Scottish Parliament and on certain days-for example, Wednesdays and Thursdays-only English Members would debate in this place. I fear that that is not a practical option at the moment. There is certainly no appetite in Scotland for reversing the Scottish Parliament, and as it was set up by a referendum it can be undone only by a referendum. That may become an option at some point, but I do not see it as a viable option now. Nevertheless, the suggestion would provide a neat solution to the West Lothian question.
	The third option is to move to a fully federal United Kingdom, with one United Kingdom Parliament legislating on the big national issues-the economy, international affairs, defence and so on-and the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly and a body for England then dealing, on an equal basis, with the issues affecting those areas. Such a system works perfectly well in Germany, Australia, Canada and many other countries, but the problem would be how to solve the "English question" in a federal situation.
	One option would be to have a separate English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington said, and as others have argued, the difficulty with that is that England would represent more than 80% of the population and more than 80% of the gross domestic product in one unit. I cannot think of a stable modern democracy with an advanced economy where there is such an overwhelming dominant part in a federation. Any other country with a federal system contains two or more big states that balance each other out. For example, Canada contains Ontario and Quebec, and Germany contains Bavaria and North Rhine-Westphalia. If England were to be a separate entity in a federal system, the arrangement would have too much of an imbalance.
	The other option would be to atomise England into regions-for example, the north-east, the south-west, Greater London and so on. There may be various permutations, but there is simply no appetite in England for that, even in the part of England where there was, allegedly, the highest demand for a regional government-the north-east. When people there were given the option of a regional government a few years ago, they overwhelmingly rejected it. In addition, we would face enormous difficulty in dividing England up. Our debates on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill have included an argument about a cross-border constituency involving Cornwall and Devon. Goodness knows what would happen if we tried to draw a boundary involving Gloucestershire, Cornwall, Dorset and other areas to constitute "the south-west of England". I simply do not believe that federalism is a viable option in this country.
	All that brings us to an imperfect answer, as we are not going to create a perfect solution to the West Lothian question unless we go down one of those three avenues. The Bill is a helpful first step in paving the way to finding that answer. I have looked at all the options over many years, although not for as long as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington. I have ruled out some and I do take seriously the comment made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that we would encounter difficulties if we started excluding Members from voting on particular bits of legislation. I strongly hold the view that every Member in this House is equal and when we start tinkering with that, we enter dangerous waters.
	I do believe, however, that there is a solution and I am happy to endorse the one proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend: some form of a double majority. In such a system no Member would be excluded from participating in a debate or voting on a particular Bill or part of a Bill, but there should then be a requirement that if that Bill applied wholly or exclusively to one part of the United Kingdom, an additional majority would be required among Members from that area.

Chris Bryant: But is the difficulty not that, for the most part, Governments introduce legislation in our system and a Government who were nervous about their majority would simply ensure that Bills contained separate clauses relating to Wales, to Northern Ireland and to Scotland, so we would not be any further forward?

Iain Stewart: I would answer that by saying that a Government who do not command the majority in all parts of the kingdom should approach with caution legislating against the will of a part where they do not command a majority. For example, one of the main arguments for devolution was that this place would legislate against the wishes of Scotland, if the Government did not command a majority in Scotland. If the Government do not command a majority, they should approach with care legislating for the whole kingdom, if that does not command support across the board.

Chris Bryant: One should assume that Governments will be unscrupulous. Hon. Members are always scrupulous, but Governments, in their corporate management of taking business through the House, might be unscrupulous. There is the myth that the previous Labour Government did not have a majority in England, but they had the majority of seats in England. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that the Bill will not solve the problem.

Iain Stewart: I will not comment on the previous Government's approach to legislation.

Chris Bryant: It is the same now.

Iain Stewart: I beg to differ.
	As I have said, there is an opportunity cost to not addressing the issue. My contention is that doing nothing carries a greater price than doing something, which is why I strongly welcome the Bill.

Andrew Bridgen: The previous Government may well have had the majority of seats in England, but they did not have the majority of the votes.

Chris Bryant: Yes, they did.

Andrew Bridgen: Once again, the hon. Gentleman comments from a sedentary position. The previous Government did not have the majority of the votes in England. I am a Unionist, and I wholeheartedly support the Union. The biggest risk posed by not addressing the West Lothian question is that the dissatisfaction of English voters, rather than the dissatisfaction of Scottish or Welsh electors, will force the Union apart.

Iain Stewart: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Sadly, I do not have the statistics, but I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), rather than the hon. Member for Rhondda, is correct about the outcome of the 2005 election in England. Hon. Members with BlackBerrys may be able to provide us with that information. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend will debate that one in the bar afterwards.
	Doing nothing is more dangerous than doing something. I am yet to hear a convincing view that the double-majority option is worse than the current situation. The approach should, of course, be gradual. We should evolve our constitution, rather than smashing it up and piecing it together again, which is why I am happy to support the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire. I hope that the Bill is read a Second time today and that it gets a fair wind in its later stages.

Damian Hinds: I want to speak briefly in support of my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) and her short, simple and splendid Bill.
	The previous Government started a number of constitutional journeys that did not have clear destinations. The reform of the other place is one example, and devolution is another-as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) has correctly pointed out, devolution is more than one journey.
	The Bill does not tell us exactly where we are going. It does not buy us a map or a TomTom, but it points the vehicle in the correct direction and provides greater visibility of the road ahead. The real divide is between those who think that the West Lothian question is a question that needs to be answered, and those who think that it is a question that might just go away. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) has put it, the question needs to be answered, if we care about maintaining the Union and carrying the people of the United Kingdom with us.
	The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) discussed the declaratory effect of passing this Bill. He is right, but the declaratory effect would be a good thing, because it would make it clear that this House thinks that the question needs to be answered. The Bill does not answer the question, but it makes it more urgent.
	We have discussed a number of options today, such as the double-majority option. The double-lock system, which is slightly different, was proposed by the taskforce on democracy, which was chaired by the Secretary of State for Justice. The double-lock system is an elegant solution to the problem, where the whole House would vote on Second Reading and Third Reading, but only English MPs would be allowed to vote in Committee and on Report. The great advantage of that system is that it would force people to negotiate. If, as a side effect, there were slightly less legislation, it would not be such a bad thing.  [ Interruption. ] I do not accept that there would automatically be more legislation caused by Governments duplicating Bills to cover the different constituent countries of the kingdom.
	As I have said, the Bill is a first step. It is not the solution to the West Lothian question, but it does enable it. When it comes to constitutional change, baby steps are good steps-incrementalism is a good thing, rather than making great lurches forward. The constitution is an organic and delicate thing, which we change at our peril. In her Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire neatly gets around the two major objections on territorial extent: namely, the potential politicisation of the office of the Speaker and the implications for the Barnett formula.
	I am happy to support the Bill. I hope that it is read a Second time today and that it completes its later stages.

Bob Stewart: Surely this is all about fairness for constituents who have a Member of Parliament. It is also about a Member of Parliament's right to represent their constituents.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that it will be difficult to sort out the problem. As we have heard, the problem goes all the way back to Simon de Montfort. Equally, we must remember the problems with the Irish Home Rule Bills in the late 19th century, which were solved-kind of. We had Stormont until 1972, which I can recall operating when I was a soldier.
	The issue will become increasingly important as power, particularly the power to raise taxes, is dissipated down. As I understand it, the Scottish Parliament might be able to raise 2p in the pound on income tax. Is that correct? I think that it is. The Scotland Bill may allow more discretion on that. When one starts talking about money as well as issues such as health, education and prisons, there is a big difference. It is important that we find a way ahead, but it will not be easy.
	I have had a few tangles with the Table Office, when I used what I thought were plain words in a question. I have had to go there several times after my homework was sent back, but I am sure that the clever people in the Table Office can design a form of words that will help. Surely it should be possible to identify whether a Bill concerns England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

Chris Bryant: That has not always been my experience of the Table Office, which is often directional and forceful in saying that one cannot table a particular question in, for example, Welsh questions. In such cases, it is often drawn into rows.
	Earlier, I suggested that Labour won more votes than the Conservatives in the 2005 election. Actually, we were 70,000 votes short but 92 seats ahead.

Bob Stewart: I thank my hon. Friend-well, not my friend, but he could be, if he is nicer. I thank the hon. Gentleman.
	It will become increasingly important that we address this problem. I am sure now, too, that that the problem will be helped by some sort of solution, such as that suggested by my right hon., learned and former Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), who is not in his position, but whom I shall make it up with. Before you were here, Madam Deputy Speaker, I called him "old friend", and he said, "Not as old as you."  [ Interruption. ] I am so sorry; I am getting into more trouble now. Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was referring to my right hon., learned and somewhat gallant Friend the Member for Kensington, who produced an elegant solution that would not be a big problem to sort out: the double vote, which my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), who shares the same name as me and who must be slightly Scottish, as I am, suggested that he endorsed as well.

Chris Bryant: I keep on thinking up more reasons why I dislike that double mandate, so I will suggest another one: one of the reasons why, traditionally, we have granted that a Bill should be given a Second Reading is so that it can be amended. Quite often, hon. Members will allow a debate on Second Reading to proceed because they want to amend something. That is the danger. Many hon. Members might want to amend a Bill to include Welsh or Scottish provisions, but they might have been prohibited from taking part in the debate on Second Reading, and that rather conflicts with the whole purpose of such a debate.

Bob Stewart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for, once again, being so perceptive as to pick a few little holes. I accept that this is not an easy problem; there is no easy fix. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) is suggesting a gradual, slow change, which I support. But I also support the idea that, when the commission sits this year, as we learn, it considers a solution. I prefer evolution, rather than revolution. I would prefer that we start to address this problem, and I am attracted to the idea presented by my new friend, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, who has departed for a coffee. I endorse in the meantime my hon. Friend's Bill.

Martin Vickers: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) on presenting the Bill. The contributions so far have shown
	"what a tangled web we weave".
	I support devolution as far as it has gone, but I am a great supporter of the Union. That is why my hon. Friend has done a service by promoting further debate.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman started the quotation but did not finish it:
	"Oh! what a tangled web we weave
	When first we practice to deceive".
	I am sure that he is not suggesting that the Bill is deceiving.

Martin Vickers: That is why I used only the first half of the quotation. I would not dream of suggesting anything such as deception.
	I recognise the growing concern-irritation would be one way of putting it-among my constituents, who rightly or wrongly feel that there is now an injustice and that Scotland has a greater say and influence over issues than they do in Lincolnshire. We in the Cleethorpes constituency are in the Yorkshire and Humber region. We do not like that, but the fact is that, officially, we seem to have been consigned to it, where there are 54 constituencies. So, in theory, the 59 constituencies that make up Scotland could overrule my constituents' wishes on an issue that affected only their region.
	Many hon. Members have talked about the designation used in Bills-for example, the Energy Bill states that it is limited to England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the Education Bill states that it is limited to England and Wales. It does not seem beyond the wit of man to find a system whereby Bills were designated as applying only to one part of the kingdom or another.
	The Bill's great strength is that it asks for a common-sense approach to be taken to the process of debate and scrutiny of draft legislation that applies only to the people of England. The anomaly that has been rather misleadingly entitled, "the West Lothian question" exists as a procedural quirk in our system. The Bill proposes that the citizens of England be given the same representation on draft legislation and that we who represent the people of England be given the same accountability as those who represent the devolved nations.
	The thrust of the Bill is not something that is radical or unsupported but is a call for the implementation of the ideal of representation, which is the core of our system. I always hesitate to use the word "fair", but the people of my constituency feel, as I mentioned a moment ago, that the system is unfair to them. The word "fairness" is used a lot in politics these days. It is rather a dangerous concept for politicians. Of course, people think that something is fair only if it is to their advantage. The present system is seen by English people as unfair.
	Mention has been made of the Conservative democracy taskforce. Its contribution to the debate has been welcome. I had rather thought that its thoughts and conclusions had been put, as with so many reports, into the litter bin of history, but we have perhaps resurrected them this morning. Of course, as has been mentioned, the taskforce suggests that the Committee stage could be taken by English Members if a Bill related only to England-that seems perfectly reasonable-and that the whole House would contribute again on Third Reading. I quote Lord Hurd:
	"The government of the United Kingdom would have to ensure that its English measures were acceptable to enough English MPs-or else not put them forward. There would be nothing extraordinary in this process: it is called politics."
	That seems an eminently sensible contribution to the debate.
	The taskforce proposals would retain the overall parliamentary majority of the UK Government for all policy and daily business. English MPs would have reserved to them only the detailed scrutiny and amendment of legislation that exclusively affects their constituents-the residents of England-but legislation that contained unacceptable amendments passed in Committee could be rejected. That seems an eminently sensible way forward.
	I support the Bill because it allows the debate to continue. Perhaps we are on the road to a more federal system, and if we are it is essential that we stop seriously to debate and consider all possible aspects, but the Bill has a downside if taken to its logical conclusion. Although I represent Cleethorpes, I live in the neighbouring constituency of Great Grimsby. Although my representative is not in his place, I am sure that he would not mind my mentioning one aspect of Grimsby. There is something called the Grimsby Pastures Act, which was first passed in 1849 and renewed in 1949, and it relates to the almost unique system of freemen of what was the borough of Great Grimsby.
	Freedom of the borough is not an honorary title but an hereditary position. The freemen own a considerable amount of land in the borough, the income from which is distributed to the freemen. Only a few hundred of them are left now. My father was a freeman, but by some quirk of the system, because I was born in Cleethorpes, I did not succeed and I am therefore a few hundred pounds worse off. When that Act comes up for renewal in 2048, only the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) would be able to vote. That guarantees a majority, but hon. Members can understand my logic.
	I support the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire has contributed considerably to the debate on the thorny West Lothian question, and I will support the Bill in the Lobby later this morning.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) is tremendously important because the West Lothian question is the constitutional question of the day. That question and reform of the House of Lords are the two issues with which politicians and parliamentarians have wrestled since just before the first world war, although no great solution to either has come forward. Today's debate gives us the opportunity to examine what the solution to the question might be and how the Bill might contribute.
	Although I am sympathetic to what the Bill is an attempt to do, I have several concerns about its details, some of which were spelled out by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), when we get down to the approach to Bills that Governments might take. What classifications would we have? Some issues are devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, while some apply throughout the United Kingdom and others are purely for England. A Bill might cover English issues and matters that are not devolved to Wales but are devolved to Scotland. Would a Standing Order of the House allow English and Welsh Members to consider that Bill, but not the Scots or the Northern Irish? What if one clause of a Bill related to all parts of the United Kingdom, but all the other clauses related only to England? Would Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland join proceedings in Committee and on Report to vote on that particular clause, although they had been kept out of Committee and Report for every other part of the Bill, subject to the Standing Order that would follow from the Bill? The sheer complexities of clarifying territorial extent are probably too great.
	Our present position is relatively straightforward. An Act of Parliament can technically overrule a devolved power, but Governments have not been willing to bring forward such a measure because of the great constitutional investment involved in establishing the devolved authorities, all of which were backed by referendums in their constituent parts. If the Bill were passed, England would be protected purely by Standing Orders. It is almost an insult to the English to say, "We had a referendum and then a Parliament for Scotland, and we carried that out in a thorough and proper way, but for the English, we will have a Standing Order." Of course, the drawback to a Standing Order is that an incoming Government could simply remove it so that all MPs could once again vote on all Bills in Committee and on Report. They would lose little political capital if they did so, because a comparatively small amount of political capital would have been invested to set up the previous system, unlike under the referendums prior to setting up the systems of devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
	Stage two from this Bill seems to involve fundamental flaws of definition and description. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) suggested, it could give rise to ridiculous situations. We will shortly be asked by their lordships to consider whether the Isle of Wight should remain an individual constituency. I rather like the idea that only one Member of Parliament should be able to vote on that. I know without any doubt which way my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) would vote, but I have a feeling that the Minister would not be entirely happy if the decision of the House was made exclusively by my hon. Friend.
	We must be careful about taking territorial extent too far, and there are huge areas in which the situation would not be clear. Let us say that we considered a Finance Bill following the devolution of tax-raising powers to Scotland. Would we go through that Bill with different people sitting on different Committees for each clause, depending on a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Would we have two separate Finance Bills? As the hon. Member for Rhondda said, we could have a succession of Bills to try to tease out regional effectiveness. It would be incredibly difficult to make such a situation work.
	I am afraid that I disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) because there is a difference between having an in-built majority to stop something throughout the five years of a Parliament, and a hung Parliament. Let us put it this way: roughly 100 seats are not English, so 550 seats are English. If 300 of those 550 seats were held by Conservative Members, the Conservatives would have a complete block on all English legislation for an entire Parliament. In a hung Parliament, there is an acceptance among minority parties that the Government's business must be carried, but the main Opposition will oppose day in, day out throughout a hung Parliament, as we see in this hung Parliament and as we saw in the 1970s. In such a situation, the official Opposition would have a majority of English seats, and therefore a block on all exclusively English legislation for the whole Parliament, so the Secretaries of State for Health and for Education would find it almost impossible to get any of their legislation through.

Iain Stewart: My hon. Friend makes my point for me, as does my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind). If the general election produced a clear majority for one party in England, but the result for the United Kingdom as a whole was different, the UK Government should proceed with the utmost caution and not introduce legislation that would be diametrically opposed to the wishes of English Members.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend makes an important and valid point. The West Lothian question is serious, but the answer is not necessarily one that we have been given so far. Just because the question is right, it does not mean that an answer to it would necessarily work. My hon. Friend is correct to say that if the majority of English seats had been won by Conservatives but we had ended up with a rainbow coalition, it would have caused huge dissatisfaction and opposition within England, as well as a feeling that the Union was not working for England. I want the Union to succeed and prosper, so I want an answer to the West Lothian question to come forward which the English find fair and with which they are comfortable.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington was right to emphasise the issue of fairness, but such fairness needs to be met with constitutional propriety and effectiveness. We have heard a great deal about the fairness so far today, but not about a workable constitutional situation, and that will not do us any good because however much one dislikes the Opposition party being in government, it will be one day, and when it is in government, it must be able to get its programme of government through. The way to stop that programme of government is not to put down so many constitutional man traps that that Government cannot get their business through, but to defeat them at the ensuing general election and reverse the worst elements of what they have done. The Bill would lead to a system that would make it incredibly difficult for a Labour Government to get their English business through, but that is not an answer to the West Lothian question because it would simply mean that that Government would have to reverse the protections that had been introduced, and I would have the gravest concerns about such protections being established purely through Standing Orders of the House.
	I know that this is not in the Bill, but its purpose is to establish the declaration so that Standing Orders can then be built either to put in place the double majority suggested by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, or to establish practice in Committee and on Report. Is it right for us to change the whole basis of legislation through Standing Orders? Standing Orders can rightly do many things concerning the hours that we sit and the way that business is timetabled, but they do not tend to change the fundamental way in which legislation is taken through the House.

Harriett Baldwin: I thank my hon. Friend for giving such an eloquent speech on some of the issues surrounding legislating on this subject. Does he accept that the Bill stops well short of giving any direction whatever as far as Standing Orders are concerned? It simply says that draft legislation will outline its impact and, in a side statement, its financial impact.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, but I was rather hoping she would not, because there is a desperate tendency on Fridays towards motherhood-and-apple-pie Bills that say nothing very much about anything in particular. If her Bill is that type of Bill, what on earth are we doing discussing it? If it just says that the Minister, out of the kindness of his heart, will say a few words about where an Act applies, it is completely and utterly pointless, and the House should not discuss things that are pointless. We do that on Fridays, and Madam Deputy Speaker is amazingly patient in listening to some of these discussions.
	My hon. Friend's Bill has to be an important stepping-stone in answering the West Lothian question, or it is nothing. I give her credit for having the courage to begin to address that question, rather than just detaining us here when we could be doing work in our constituency on a Friday. I hope that she will not try to hide behind the minutiae of the Bill instead of looking at the bigger picture, because that bigger picture is crucial.
	My hon. Friend is right to put pressure on the Government to come up with a solution that can be debated in Government time. In that respect, the Bill is really noble, because the Government do have to think about the issue. It is unfair on the British-the English; I apologise for using those two words synonymously, as I know the English do a great deal.

Chris Bryant: And the French.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The French?

Chris Bryant: The French very regularly confuse "anglais" with "britannique".

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that illuminating point. I always thought that the Auld Alliance meant that they were rather keen on the Scots, but that may be a slight diversion.
	What ought the Government to do and to think about as they approach a solution to the West Lothian question? They have to think about the practicalities. We have had learned discussion already today about how difficult it would be to have an English Parliament, because one would then have an English Government, and that would be simply too big. That is the problem that Balfour identified when first discussing Home Rule. He asked what we do about England, when we have Ireland, Scotland and Wales as nations. Do we chop England up, or simply have it swamping the whole new system that is being established? If there is an English Prime Minister and a UK Prime Minister, who does the President of the United States visit when he comes? He sees the English Prime Minister, because the UK Prime Minister would have peripheral powers. He might have a slightly better house, but that would be the extent of it. There is not an easy solution to the English Parliament issue.
	There is then the question of English votes on English issues, but the more one discusses that superficially hugely attractive option, the more one discovers that it does not work, because there would be two tiers of MPs, and a Whitehall Government that could not get a major part of its legislation through and would therefore begin to fail. One would then begin to try to chop up the procedures, so that the Government could decide which MPs debated which bits of legislation, but that would not work either, for reasons that we have discussed. There was mention of the Welsh Grand Committee and how little that was able to succeed in doing; and when the Conservatives were last in government, they thought that a sop to devolution would be to have a Scottish Grand Committee. The fact is that the governing party has to be able to get its parliamentary business through. Whatever schemes it sets up will not work if that fundamental principle is not followed, and will be changed to the extent that they cannot be used.
	So what do I suggest that the Government do? That is the nub of it. We will have an election at some point in which the Conservatives have a clear majority in England but are not the major part of the governing group. At that point, there will be squeals of anguish from the English electorate, and the Conservative party will use that all it can for political advantage. We will find that the Union comes under fundamental attack. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) that any attack on the Union is likely to come not from the Scottish nationalists but from English nationalists, fed up with the way that they are being treated.
	I would like the Government to consider the proposal that we heard earlier about allowing the two Parliaments and the one Assembly to come together to some extent, but I accept that that is difficult: As a result of how they were set up, it would be problematic to change them at this stage, but it may be that something could be done along those lines. Alternatively, the thing will simply have to be done in the best form of British fudge-that is, Labour Members, when in government, will have to be enormously responsible and self-denying about what they do in England, and conventions will have to become very important in our constitutional settlement. If it becomes a convention, but is not formalised, that English representation will have a majority, or will at least accept a veto on extremely controversial measures, that may be a fudge that would work.
	It is interesting and worth noting that on both big constitutional issues-reform of the House of Lords and the West Lothian question-after 100 years of the best brains trying to find a solution, no obvious solution has come up. With every solution that does come up, after one has thought about it for a week or two, one sees any number of holes in it. I therefore see absolutely no reason to oppose the Bill when we come to vote on it. There is nothing objectionable in it, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire has been very sensible to ensure that that is the case. It is good to push the Government, but I would not hold my breath-I do not think that I can breathe in for the next 100 years -waiting for a solution to this almost intractable problem. However, we have to recognise that, as my hon. Friend says, the English may get deeply fed up with the current situation, and when they do, that is when the Union will be most at risk. That is, I think, what most Government Members, and at least one Member on the Opposition side of the Chamber-the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley)-would be extremely keen to avoid.

Ian Paisley Jnr: It is always a pleasure to follow the clever-and highly witty, at times-speeches made by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). I also congratulate the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) on getting the Bill before the House. However, my flattery stops at that point, I am afraid.
	I have significant difficulties with the Bill, because I believe that it does the exact opposite of what the hon. Lady intends. I believe that she is a good Unionist and that she cares passionately about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However, the Bill could be the slippery slope towards the disengagement of that Union, and that should be avoided.
	The hon. Member for North East Somerset talked about the ridiculousness and pointlessness of certain legislation, and I believe that if this private Member's Bill were to be pursued to its ultimate conclusion, we would effectively have what has been described on other occasions as wallpaper. The hon. Lady let the cat out of the bag during her earlier interjection; she said that the Bill wanted only to do something very simple. During my short time at the House, I have found that there is nothing simple about legislation. If we think that a simple piece of legislation can cure ills, we are misguided in our observation.
	Some arrant nonsense has been spoken-and, unfortunately, passionately believed by some Members. The idea is that Members of Parliament from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are somehow, to use the parlance of the street, more feckless and lazy than Members from England. That is wrong, and it is condescension of the highest order.
	If the Member who made that point wishes to check  Hansard or the website theyworkforyou.com for Back-Bench interventions, speeches and contributions to the wealth of the House, he will probably find that there are Members on the Opposition Benches from those regions whose contributions to the debates and activities of the House are above average or significantly greater than some Government Back Benchers. We need to be careful before pointing the finger at the level of skill or contribution brought to this Parliament by Members from the regions.

Iain Stewart: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that many of us who passionately believe that we have to address the West Lothian question also believe in the equality of the work loads of Members. I do not believe that that is an intractable problem. Although some of my colleagues might believe that for Members from devolved areas there is a lighter load from postbags or parliamentary work, not all of us hold that view.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I do not think that the view is necessary commonly held, but we should caution ourselves. When we speak in this place on behalf of the Union and such points are made-not in jest, but seriously-that seriously undermines the standing of the House and its Members. That is not what we should be about. We should bear that in mind.

Chris Bryant: Has the hon. Gentleman had the following experience, as I have had in the past couple of weeks? As a Welsh Member of Parliament, I have had a lot of e-mails and correspondence from my constituents on the issue of selling off forests. That does not apply in Wales, but the issue is deeply felt by many in my constituency.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I appreciate that intervention. I got at least three forest trees of letters through my door from people passionately asking me to oppose or support the plan, depending on where the correspondence came from, even though it does not directly affect Northern Ireland. I exercised some caution. I recognised that although it did not directly affect Northern Ireland, I could attend the debate and listen to the arguments. However, I did not vote; I deliberately made a choice not to do so, because I believed that it was a matter for Members who were directly affected and whose constituency issues rested on it. The issues were addressed in the devolved Assembly. I had the right to vote, but I also had the choice of whether to exercise it.
	If Members feel that they are missing out, they should look at the devolved Assemblies. What exactly are they doing? Last week, our Assembly in Northern Ireland, of which I am no longer a Member, was dealing with legislation for safety helmets for bicycle riders. A dog fouling Bill was also introduced. We are not missing a lot. We should not think that there is stuff going on in those regions that we should really be getting our teeth into and ask why Members there are getting it while we are not. We are not missing that much, and we should bear that in mind.
	I turn to the substantial point that I have in mind. I am a Unionist, and a proud one, but my Unionism is as strong only as each component part of the Union. My Unionism is deleted if Scottish or Welsh Unionism is deleted or English Unionism is not strong. As a Member for Northern Ireland, I have a responsibility to encourage the Union and see that it is strengthened. The Union is as strong only as each of its component parts. If Northern Ireland or Scotland are made weaker by legislation such as this, Unionism is made weaker. We should tread very carefully.

Harriett Baldwin: I thank the hon. Gentleman for coming along to participate in the debate, because his perspective is valuable. Will anything in the Bill prevent him from voting on anything? The Bill could allow our unwritten constitution to evolve so that Members might indeed choose to abstain in the way that he describes.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The beauty of an unwritten constitution is flexibility. As Burke said, we are here to give to the people who elect us not just of our industry, but of our judgment. We are elected to make judgment calls, and we should have the sense to make those calls without that having to be written down, as the hon. Member for North East Somerset said, in a motherhood and apple pie way. That is what we seriously need to avoid.
	I passionately believe that there is a real danger that if we create a two-tier Chamber, instead of having a wonderful House of Commons, we will have a House of little Englanders. That does not serve this nation or the interests of any member of it, whether they are in the Hebrides or Fermanagh. We need to recognise that.
	We all pay the same taxes. If we want changes to taxation, the Magna Carta gives us rights to be represented in this House. We should passionately hold on to those. I appeal to my Conservative and Unionist friends to recognise that they should not play party politics with the constitution of this nation because they fear that the English will become bad Unionists in future. They need to be careful. They have a responsibility to lead the people of England into believing as passionately in the Union as I do. They can do that only by discouraging the view that we need another Parliament for the English. They and the House need to encourage the strength of Parliament and the development of powers here.
	The hon. Member for North East Somerset said that he would like some mechanisms to be developed, but there are already such mechanisms, such as the British-Irish Council. The BIC is supposed to strengthen east-west relationships and bring the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly together with members of the Government of this United Kingdom, and indeed at times with members of the Government of the Republic of Ireland. Those mechanisms should be encouraged and worked on. If the House does not play its full role in the BIC, it should get up off its proverbial bottom and do so, and demonstrate why we, as Unionists, can be stronger not as individual components but as a whole.
	I leave those points with the House. I cannot support the Bill.

Mark Harper: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), my constituency neighbour, on introducing this private Member's Bill. She has been in the House of Commons for only a brief time, but has already secured a place in the ballot for private Members' Bills significantly higher than I ever achieved-I never got into the top 20-and significantly higher than many other hon. Members. I am grateful to her for introducing a measure that has engaged Members on both sides of the House in a thoughtful way.
	The West Lothian question is the backdrop to my hon. Friend's Bill. Of course, calling the problem the West Lothian question makes it sound somewhat obscure to most voters. We had a go at rechristening it the English question, but that never seemed to work, so I shall use the old nomenclature. My hon. Friend wants to tackle the question, and she and I have discussed it, after which she has looked at her proposals and improved them. I am not sure that the Bill is exactly as the Government would wish, so at the end of my remarks, particularly because of the complexities involved, I shall test the opinion of the House. However, if the Bill goes into Committee, I look forward to working with her constructively to improve it.
	Hon. Members on both sides of the House raised a number of issues. It is worth going into the background and being clear about what we are talking about when we talk about legislation that affects different parts of the UK. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) picked up something that my hon. Friend said when she talked about legislation that affects different parts of the United Kingdom. He referred to parts of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill-I am sure that Members are waiting with bated breath to debate it again next week-that affect Wales. There is a distinction between legislation that affects different parts of the country and legislation under which decisions are reserved to Westminster and are properly not taken by the devolved Assemblies, which are different things. This House can legislate for things where the decisions are reserved here, as the hon. Gentleman said.
	For example, there are electoral matters which, although decisions on them may affect only Wales, are reserved to the Secretary of State. In those cases, one could perfectly happily conclude that it was quite right and proper for every Member of this House to vote on such decisions, even though they affected only Wales. There are also cases where it has been decided that decisions should be devolved-in this case to the Welsh Assembly-and that this House should not legislate on them. Members may well want to make a distinction in those cases, because they might not think it proper for the whole House to vote on the equivalent decisions that affected only England. The argument would be that in Wales, for example, it is Welsh Assembly Members who are taking those decisions, whereas in England, Welsh MPs should not be making the same decisions for English constituents when they do not play that role in their own constituencies. It is the asymmetry in these debates that causes some disquiet in England. It is not so much the fact that, in this example, Welsh MPs would be voting on issues that affected only England; it is the fact that English MPs have no say on the same issues in Wales.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire ran through a number of potential solutions. She also noted-as did a number of other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg)-that one solution to the English question posited by the previous Government was to introduce some kind of regional devolution. She noted that this solution had been rejected decisively in the north-east. Indeed, the neighbouring constituencies that the two of us represent highlight that very well. There is a lot in common between Gloucestershire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire, yet we are both in different Government office regions and different regions for the European Parliament. We have neighbouring constituencies, yet there is quite a significant dividing line between some of the ways in which we represent our constituents. How we would divide up England would therefore not be a straightforward matter, as the previous Government found, and as any future Government would also find.
	In setting out the intention behind her Bill, my hon. Friend was keen to avoid any danger that the Speaker would be drawn into controversy. It is fair to say that Mr Speaker is not known for courting controversy of any kind, and I am sure that he would very much welcome her intention to ensure that he did not inadvertently get drawn into any.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) made an interesting suggestion, which will have been noted, for effectively abolishing Members of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly, and instead having just Members of Parliament with different roles. That is an idea, but given where we start from, I am not sure that it is achievable. It may have been a good solution in the pre-devolution era, but given that those devolution settlements were set up and approved by the people in referendums, I am not sure that it is possible.
	My right hon. and learned, and eternally youthful Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) proffered his East Lothian answer to the West Lothian question. He drew attention to the fact-this is a critical point-that, with the three devolution settlements, a large number of Members of Parliament now represent parts of the United Kingdom with a devolved Parliament or Assembly. That is an important issue that this House needs to deal with. He put forward a solution involving, effectively, a requirement for a double majority on the Second and Third Readings of Bills, and it would certainly be worth while for the commission that the Government will set up to consider that.
	My right hon. and learned Friend also referred to the concerns raised by Vernon Bogdanor, who, as the hon. Member for Rhondda pointed out, is my old politics tutor. Professor Bogdanor taught politics not only to me but to the Prime Minister. I am not sure what the Prime Minister would say about this, but I know that the professor and I have both come to the conclusion that neither of us has managed to persuade the other of anything much that we believe. He and I had a debate on the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, and, when I was giving evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, I drew attention to the concerns that he had raised. I subsequently received a communication from him that broadly confirmed that I have still not managed to persuade him of anything. I did not persuade him of much in my essays at university and he did not persuade me of his views.

Michael Ellis: What grade did you get?

Mark Harper: That is an interesting question. This is one of the key differences-not the only one-between me and the Prime Minister. He got a first, but I only got a 2:1, which probably explains why he is the Prime Minister and I am just the Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington made several good points. Despite the attempts by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) to put my right hon. and learned Friend's name forward to serve on the commission that we will set up, I noted carefully that he declined the opportunity, saying that he would be happy to give evidence to it.

Chris Bryant: I hope that I am not breaking a private confidence when I say that Vernon Bogdanor told me that he thought that the Minister, when he was his student, was very clever and bright and clearly destined for greater things, but that it was a shame that he had fallen among thieves of late.

Mark Harper: I have just looked at the expression on you face, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I think that I am going to be generous and describe the hon. Gentleman's use of the word "thieves" as an attempt at humour. I do not think that it was a very successful attempt, but this is perhaps the best way to get him out of the difficulty that he might otherwise have got himself into.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) is champing at the bit to give evidence to the commission. Will the Minister tell us when it is going to be set up, so that my right hon. and learned Friend can do that? I hope that it can be within weeks, rather than months.

Mark Harper: If my hon. Friend can wait just a little longer, I will come to that important point.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire had talked about the Welsh Grand Committee, and the hon. Member for Rhondda made a very telling comment-I am sure that he will correct me if I did not hear him correctly-when he leapt to his feet and said that the Committee was otherwise known as the Welsh grandstanding Committee. I think that that is what he called it; he is not demurring. He said that if that was the solution, we were not asking the right question. I wanted to ensure that I had heard him correctly, and to put on record that he thinks the Welsh Grand Committee is a grandstanding Committee. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will bear his opinion in mind when Welsh Labour Members are making bids for issues to be considered by the, as he called it, Welsh grandstanding Committee. I am sure that she will find his intervention extremely helpful.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I am slightly confused. Did the hon. Member for Rhondda mean that it was a grand Standing Committee or a grandstanding Committee?

Mark Harper: In view of what I think the hon. Member for Rhondda was saying about the way in which the Committee had behaved from time to time, I think he was making it clear that he felt it was a Welsh grandstanding Committee. I think that it is helpful to get that point on to the record.

Chris Bryant: Well, this is a grand debate, isn't it? The truth is that, all too often, the Welsh Grand Committee has been a pretty futile body. It is all the more futile when the Government give it matters to discuss that its members do not want to discuss, and when those decisions are made only by the Government and not by the Committee's members.

Mark Harper: rose-

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I have let this run a little bit, but I think that we should now return to the Bill. This is not a debate about the Welsh Grand; it is a debate about the hon. Lady's Bill, and I would like the Minister to return to that subject.

Mark Harper: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I detected that the House probably felt that that part of the debate had run its course.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) made a powerful speech in favour of the Union, but he cautioned about the reason why we should answer the West Lothian question. He noted that in last year's general election, the Conservative party had a majority of seats in England and that if our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had not led in such a bold fashion to put together this coalition, an alternative might well have caused a constitutional crisis. That suggests how important it is for the Government to deal with this issue now. It is better to deal with the question and provide a possible solution, however complex that be, in an atmosphere of relative calm rather than to solve it hurriedly in an atmosphere of crisis. I hope that all those of a Unionist inclination-probably every Member in the House today-will agree that it is better to look at these matters sensibly and implement solutions calmly rather than wait for the crisis to happen, when significant pressure might come from English voters to solve the problem, making it more difficult to resolve it calmly and sensibly.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South referred to the opportunity cost of doing nothing, which might ultimately put the Union at risk. He ran through a number of what he called "perfect"-perhaps better described as "tidy"-solutions, but noted that there were good reasons to believe that they would not work. He suggested-I think it was the same conclusion as that put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington-that there is no single tidy solution, but that a number of imperfect solutions could deal with the nub of the issue. I believe that a number of my hon. Friends reached the same conclusion.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) also rightly drew attention to the fact that there is no simple solution. He ran through a number of solutions and noted some concerns about them, including about the solution of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, which my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset believed might face some difficult procedural problems. His key point was that people must think that any proposed solution is fair-fair to all parts of the United Kingdom. He also flagged up the potential risk of an election result in which a majority party in England was not the same as the Government at Westminster. He correctly put his finger on the fact that that would indeed constitute a risk to the Union. He argued in favour of a classic British fudge, suggesting that a party that did not have a majority in England but was in government at Westminster would need a self-denying ordinance. Perhaps some solutions could be put in place along those lines. All the issues show how complicated the problem is.
	The Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire puts forward a number of solutions. There are two new duties on any Minister publishing legislation in draft. Clause 1 deals with the first duty, which is to
	"ensure that the legal and financial effect of that legislation on each part of the United Kingdom is separately and clearly identified."
	The second duty, in clause 3, is to "make a statement" that the Bill is
	"compatible with the principles of legislative territorial clarity, or"
	if the Bill is not compatible with them, to make a similar statement where
	"the government nonetheless wishes to proceed."
	This is my hon. Friend's attempt, I think, to set out clearly in the Bill that the Government must make those judgments so that the Chair would not be drawn into controversy. The principles of legislative clarity are set out in clause 4, which states that
	"every citizen of the United Kingdom has the right to see how proposed changes to the law will affect them"
	and that hon. Members of this House
	"have the right to see how proposed changes to the law will affect their constituents."
	I believe those are sensible principles, but I hope to persuade the House and my hon. Friend that her Bill is not necessarily the best way of advancing those objectives.
	My hon. Friend has sensibly made the Bill apply only to draft legislation, to preserve the independence of Parliament from the courts, and to protect its exclusive cognisance. Had she attempted to set down in legislation how actual Bills were presented to the House, that might have opened up the opportunity for courts to involve themselves in our legislative procedures. She has avoided that danger, but the flipside is that her Bill will affect only draft legislation and, therefore, it will not affect every Bill brought to the House. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset highlighted an alternative, non-legislative solution, which is to deal with such matters in the Standing Orders of the House. He also noted the difficulties in that approach, such as not being able to entrench the provision.
	By mirroring the provisions in section 19 of the Human Rights Act, which requires Ministers to make a statement of compatibility with the convention, the requirement under clause 3 of the Bill is carefully drafted so as not to fall foul of the exclusive cognisance principle. The duty is on Ministers, rather than being a legislative requirement. The flaw is that the Bill imposes requirements on Government that are already in place and with which the Government should comply. As has been noted, the Cabinet Office's "Guide to Making Legislation" already provides that the territorial extent and application of legislation should be set out in a statement at the beginning of the explanatory notes, in whatever form of words is appropriate to the Bill. In addition, it provides that where a Bill makes different provision for the different nations of the United Kingdom, that should be outlined in the explanatory notes, setting out the territorial extent of each part of the Bill separately if necessary.

Harriett Baldwin: I thank the Minister for his perceptive comments about what I have tried to avoid in drafting the Bill. I am glad that he accepts that the principles of the Bill are sound, even if its wording might be modified by the Government in Committee, which I would welcome. The Bill moves civil service guidance on to a statutory footing, thus strengthening the whole process.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. It comes back to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset that the Bill does nothing harmful, but nor does it take us much further forward. I start from the position, as do the Government, that we should not legislate for unnecessary matters that do not add anything.

Chris Bryant: A clear example is to be found in the explanatory notes to the next Bill that we will consider. In relation to the territorial extent and application, the notes state:
	"The Bill extends to (that is, forms part of the law of) England and Wales. The terms of clause 1, however, mean that it will only take effect within England."
	Often, there is not the clarity that an ordinary person might want and seek, even when we put something on the face of a Bill.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the fact that, even when something is required, it is not always executed brilliantly. Even if the requirements in the Cabinet Office guidance on drafting legislation were put into statute, that would not necessarily mean that they would be better executed than they are currently.
	In practice, the financial aspects of the Bill would also have little consequence, because the present arrangements already require all new UK-wide legislation to specify the financial impact and to be drafted within a Department's existing funding plans. Therefore, no new Barnett financial consequentials would arise, as a matter of course. Bills that deal with reserved matters have no Barnett consequentials attached and do not have significant impact on different Administrations.
	In relation to how legislation is drafted, the Bill does not take us much further forward. Effectively, it puts into statutory form what the Government currently intend and do, thus losing a little flexibility. However, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset put his finger on it when he observed that the West Lothian question was complicated. While the Bill may lead us to a potential solution, it may not be the one that the commission comes up with.
	Finally, let me do what I was invited to do by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), and remind the House that the Government have made a commitment to set up a commission to examine the West Lothian question. Although the coalition parties approach the issue from different angles, they have made a common commitment to resolve the question. In the Conservative party manifesto, we promised to
	"introduce new rules so that legislation referring specifically to England, or to England and Wales, cannot be enacted without the consent of MPs representing constituencies of those countries."
	The Liberal Democrats' manifesto said that they would
	"Address the status of England within a federal Britain, through the Constitutional Convention set up to draft a written constitution for the UK as a whole."
	Although the coalition parties came up with very different solutions to the West Lothian question, both parties consider it important to attempt to answer it, and neither party believes that it is possible to answer it by ceasing to ask it. We consider it a serious question that will be best tackled when we can tackle it in a calm and reasonable manner rather than waiting for a crisis.
	I can confirm that we will set up the commission this year, as, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire established through her perceptive questioning. We had hoped to make announcements to the House at an earlier stage, but I look forward to making them in the not-too-distant future, and the commission will then be able to consider the ideas that have been advanced today. Hon. Members have effectively made bids to participate, either as members of the commission or in giving evidence to it. I hope that it will arrive at solutions that we can subsequently debate.
	I urge my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire to withdraw her Bill, to participate in the commission in whatever way proves appropriate, and to continue to take part in this important debate. The Government are keen to answer the question and deal with this important matter, but I am not sure that my hon. Friend's Bill provides the right way of going about it, and I think it right to test the opinion of the House.

Christopher Chope: I had not intended to speak in the debate, but I must say that I am disappointed that the Minister was not more forthcoming about the commitment in the coalition agreement to establishing a commission. As he and other Members have observed, this issue is extremely complicated, so why are we now delaying even the appointment of the people who will consider it? We have already delayed for far too long. The original commitment was that the commission would be established before the end of 2010, but the Minister now expects us to accept as a big deal the information that he will make an announcement before the end of this year.
	One great virtue of the Bill is that if it is given a Committee stage, members of the Committee will be able to maintain pressure on the Government to fulfil their commitment to do something. The Minister tells us that the cost of doing nothing about it is putting the Union at risk, which is pretty serious stuff, but at the moment the Government are doing nothing about it.
	I would not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on what I am about to say. Indeed, the reason I am able to speak after him is that he will not be able to comment on it. I think that the Deputy Prime Minister, who is in charge of my hon. Friend's Department and is the person who can give the yea or nay to whether the commission is to be set up and when, has not got his heart in it. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell the Deputy Prime Minister that in the extra time that he will have next week, now that he has cancelled his trip to South America, he should give serious consideration to getting on with working out who will be on the commission and what will be its scope and remit. Surely the commission should be set up now, so that it can get to work before all the other stuff that is coming along is before the House. The last written answer on the issue says:
	"Careful consideration is ongoing as to the timing, composition, scope and remit of the Commission to consider the... question."
	Some of us were not born yesterday. It is obvious that this is a stalling exercise by the Government. There was an unholy compromise in the coalition agreement but the Deputy Prime Minister is not even delivering on that compromise. He may realise that it could have implications for his party. There is no point, if the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have different views on the matter, trying to paper over the cracks. Why do we not get on and appoint the commission? Perhaps the coalition cannot even agree who could be on it, or what its scope and remit would be.
	The written answer goes on to say that the commission
	"will need to take account of our proposals to reform the House of Lords".
	Well, what has happened to those? We were told that a draft Bill would be published before Christmas. We have not seen that yet. We might be waiting another year or so before those proposals emerge.
	The written answer goes on to say that the commission will need to take account of
	"the changes being made to the way this House does business".
	There will be further changes to the way the House does business when the Backbench Business Committee is able to look at both Government legislation and Back-Bench business, and we are told that that will not start until the third year of this Parliament-another recipe for delay.
	The written answer says that the commission will have to consider
	"amendments to the devolution regimes".
	We know that a referendum will be held shortly in Wales, but why do we need to wait for the outcome of that before we set up the body that will look into these complex issues? There is then a reference to the fact that there is
	"the Scotland Bill presently before the House".
	The written answer concludes; it is similar to what my hon. Friend the Minister has said today:
	"We will make an announcement later this year."-[ Official Report, 31 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 549W.]
	It does not even say that the commission will be set up later this year.
	I commend my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) for having a stab at what is an extremely complex issue. People perhaps more learned in the law than she is, such as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), had a go at the issue. More than 100 of us came to support him when his Bill had its Second Reading debate to ensure that it could get into Committee. It was then kicked into the long grass. That shows for how long the issue has been discussed.
	I remain suspicious about the motives of the Deputy Prime Minister. I think that he is stalling seriously on the issue. If the Bill goes into Committee it will give all hon. Members the opportunity to keep the pressure on the Government to meet what was a pretty meaningless commitment in the coalition agreement anyway. At least it would be something.

Mark Harper: I know that my hon. Friend is not perhaps the most enthusiastic supporter of the coalition Government but I think that he sees mischief where there is none. The clear message from the thoughtful speeches of all Members today is that the issue is complicated. If the Government are to deal with it calmly and sensibly and in a manner that does not put the Union at risk, we must proceed thoughtfully and properly. However, I have given a clear commitment that we need to deal with the matter and answer the question. Therefore, I urge him to be a bit more generous in spirit.

Christopher Chope: I am generous by nature but I would be even more generous if my hon. Friend had explained why it has turned out to be impossible for the Government to appoint the commission before Christmas, as they originally intended.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: May I come to the support of the Minister, and on a constitutional issue, which may surprise him? Our consideration of the earlier legislation on the alternative vote, parliamentary boundaries and fixed-term Parliaments was desperately rushed, and therefore its measures were not necessarily very well thought through, which is a great shame. In contrast, the progress we are making towards considering the West Lothian question in a deliberative and thorough way is in the best traditions of high Toryism.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think that these deliberations should be conducted by the commission itself, however, rather than by the Government, and I do not want the Government to be agonising over whether there should be a commission and, if so, who will serve on it. I do not think my hon. Friend and I are very far apart, as I believe the commission must be given the maximum amount of time to go into the details of this topic. However, if we are going to get this sorted out before the end of this fixed-term Parliament, why have we not got on with it already? What is the reason for the delay? It seems to me that the justifications for delay put forward thus far are specious in the extreme, and we have learned from experience that if a Government have not got a proper explanation for delay, the reason is usually that they intended to delay matters, as is the case now.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept, however, that he cannot have both sides of the argument? He cannot claim that this is a very complex and complicated issue to resolve, but also say, "But here's an easy way to get it sorted out." Does he not recognise that there are two ways to skin this rat, as it were, and that the commission offered today is perhaps one of those ways?

Christopher Chope: I think the hon. Gentleman is on the same side as I am on that, because I am saying not that this is an easy issue to sort out, but that the coalition Government agreed to set up a commission to consider it, yet until the commission is set up it cannot start considering it. I cannot understand why the commission has not yet been set up and why my hon. Friend the Minister cannot give a commitment that it will be set up sooner rather than later. Instead, he just talks vaguely about something happening towards the end of this year. That will be one and a half years into this Parliament, and it would mean that if the commission were to come up with legislative proposals, the chances of being able to get them through in this Parliament would be significantly reduced unless the commission concertinaed its work into a very short space of time.
	That is what leads me to conclude-I think any rational observer would conclude this-that the Government have not got their heart in this. They are hopelessly split between the Liberal Democrat agenda and the Conservative party agenda, which was clearly set out in our manifesto. We compromised on that in the coalition agreement, and we have given the tools whereby that compromise might be taken forward, namely the setting up of the commission, to the leader of the Liberal Democrat party. I do not think he has got his heart in trying to achieve any progress on this matter, however. I sympathise enormously with the Minister, but I hope that by getting the Bill into Committee we will be able to maintain the pressure. That is why I support the Bill.

Harriett Baldwin: I thank all Members on both sides of the House for their excellent contributions today. The debate has been extremely interesting, and we have heard widespread support for the Bill's intentions. We have also heard a range of objections, however, such as from the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), but I think his fears are unjustified; we are on his side here. By not talking about this, we would run into as many difficulties as we might through some of the solutions he fears. I urge him to support the Bill on Second Reading, as I think that if it progresses that will serve to get some of the issues out in the open, and not bury them, which I think would be worse for his case in the long term.
	The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), put up a series of straw men-or ghouls and ghosties-that do not apply to the Bill. I therefore feel sure that he will support the Bill- [Interruption.] I may have misread his intentions, in which case I ask him to forgive me.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) made some supportive comments, but he also rightly raised concerns about some of the subsequent issues that this House might still have to grapple with. I am not, by any means, pretending that this Bill solves all those issues, but his description of it as "pointless" rankles. The very fact that we have had this excellent debate shows that it is not pointless. It would provide much greater clarity and put that on a statutory footing, and would prevent the Speaker from possibly being put in a difficult position.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I apologise if I implied that I thought the Bill was pointless. I was concerned that if it did not lead to anything else, it would be pointless, and therefore I thought it needed to go on to the subsequent events.

Harriett Baldwin: I thank my hon. Friend very much for that clarification. In an elegant speech, the Minister made similar points, saying that the Bill was good as far as it goes but that we need to go much further. I would have been much more sympathetic to his desire for me to withdraw the Bill today if he could have made some announcements or put some measures on the table that would give me confidence that his urgency on the issue was similar to that expressed by colleagues on our Benches. Having considered his kind invitation for me to withdraw the Bill, I have decided that I do not wish to do so and I ask that the Question be put.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	 The House divided: Ayes 19, Noes 17.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	  Bill read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

Planning (Opencast Mining Separation Zones) Bill

Second Reading

Andrew Bridgen: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	May I begin by saying what a privilege it is to be able to introduce a Bill on a matter that I campaigned on before and after the last general election? This issue is very close to the heart of a large number of my constituents in North West Leicestershire, both now and historically. Indeed, I am following in a rich tradition of Members of Parliament for North West Leicestershire, all of whom have raised the issue of opencast mining in the House at one time or another as an item that has blighted my constituency and the lives of my constituents for decades.
	It would be best to start by setting out the rationale behind the Bill. Back in February 2010, along with other parliamentary candidates, I was asked to speak and debate at a hustings organised by the Minorca opencast protest group, which I will take this opportunity to thank and pay tribute to for all its hard work in campaigning against a proposed opencast mine in my constituency, near the village of Measham. While researching the subject for the hustings, the question of a buffer zone arose. Such a zone is a legally enforced gap between an open-cast mine and a residential settlement. I found that, in the 1990s, East Ayrshire council in Scotland became the first UK local authority formally to introduce a 500-metre buffer zone between open-cast and surface mining sites, and areas of settlement. After much lobbying and protest, that eventually led to the incorporation in present Scottish planning policy, which was published in February 2010, of guidance on a 500-metre buffer zone.
	I also discovered that the most consistent public request about open-cast mining in the past two years has been for the minerals technical advice document to include a 500-metre buffer zone. Interestingly, the Welsh Assembly Government have put in place a policy of introducing 500-metre buffer zones between areas of settlement and open-cast mines. However, in September 2009, when my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) questioned the previous Government about the introduction of such zones in England, he was told:
	"There is no current intention to review existing planning policy on opencast mining and introduce buffer zones in England."-[ Official Report, 1 September 2009; Vol. 496, c. 1843W.]
	Poor old England suffers again.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to one of us hard-working Ulstermen. I wholeheartedly support the Bill. We face a similar situation even in my constituency, because there is a proposal for a lignite, open-cast, filthy mine in Ballymoney that would tear up swathes of Ulster and North Antrim right to the causeway coast and the middle of a tourist zone. Such a Bill would help to prevent that, so I give him my support.

Andrew Bridgen: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support.
	The Bill would offer protection to communities not only in North West Leicestershire but in dozens of constituencies in former coalfields throughout the country, hopefully including in Northern Ireland. A study carried out by the Minorca open-cast protest group showed that 29 open-cast sites in England are being worked now, have received planning permission, or are in the planning pipeline. It also found that development could take place in the near future on a further 34 sites scattered across the counties of Derbyshire, Yorkshire, Durham, Northumberland, Cumbria, Greater Manchester, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Nottinghamshire and, of course, my own county of Leicestershire. Figures from the Coal Authority that were produced in March 2010 show that whereas buffer zone-protected Scotland and Wales had known reserves of open-cast mined coal of 75 million tonnes and 147 million tonnes respectively, unprotected England has 516 million tonnes of reserves, much of which lies within 500 metres of residential settlements.
	Since the Bill was announced, I have received messages of support from groups and individuals throughout the country whose lives have been affected by the blight of open-cast mining. An application has been made for an open-cast mine in the north-east, and a member of the public who lives near the proposed site contacted me about the
	"black cloud of a planning application to mine a site which is alarmingly close to some of the houses in our local area. Some houses will be within 58 metres of the site, some 140 metres, while the majority affected would be within 300 metres as proposed by the scoping report."
	The Minorca site in my constituency is only 100 metres away from residential settlements. It has the potential to have a devastating effect on the quality of my constituents' lives, and I am sure that many hon. Members in the Chamber will have heard appeals for help from communities facing the prospect of open-cast mining happening effectively in their backyards.
	The stark reality of the situation was brought home to me when I read the following account of the impact of open-cast mining:
	"They have just started an open cast mine in the field behind my mother's house in Shropshire. In weeks we expect her view of fields and The Wrekin to be replaced by a 9 metre high mound of earth 6 metres from her property. She is 84 years old and until the Shropshire Star did an article on her, the opencast company had not even bothered to visit her or contact her.
	She has limited mobility and is therefore housebound. With an open cast mine and then a land fill site she will no longer be able to open her windows or sit in her garden. What a way to spend the final years of your life. She would now like to move but this is now impossible. Nobody would buy it and the opencast company is not interested even though they own the property on either side of her."
	The Bill would also have a positive impact on planning policy. I have received support for it from a planner, who commented:
	"'I became aware of your private members bill that would introduce a 500m buffer zone between open cast mining and residents, when giving planning advice on the redevelopment of redundant buildings in the grounds of a grade II listed property which is currently negatively impacted upon by the potential for open cast mining within the immediate vicinity.
	Despite my advice and that of the council being that it would be highly unlikely that consent would granted for open cast mining within the grounds of a grade II* listed property, the lack of certainty given by the existing policy framework is causing the would be developer considerable concern and jeopardising the investment and job creation that would result from the sale and redevelopment of the buildings".
	So it is not only open-cast mining but the mere threat of it that hinders the economic development of coalfield areas. That case clearly illustrates the need for the certainty that a defined buffer zone would provide-a need also illustrated by a case in Wales. As the environmental correspondent for  The Guardian wrote on his blog, before the buffer zone
	"was introduced in Wales, I saw how the lives of people in Merthyr Tydfil were being ruined by the mine on their doorsteps. The green hillside they had looked out on, where they walked their dogs and where their children played, is being turned into a hole-the Ffos-y-Fran pit-200 metres deep and three kilometres wide. The edge of the pit is just 36 metres from the nearest homes. Their peace is shattered by the sound of blasting and digging and the daily journeys of hundreds of monster trucks; their homes are harder to sell; their view has been ruptured. Why should anyone have to put up with this?"
	Well, the Governments of Wales and Scotland decided that no one should have to put up with it, and imposed a 500-metre buffer zone, but in England, despite vocal campaigns, there is still no minimum distance between open-cast coal mines and people's homes-a clear case of discrimination.
	There is an argument that the anomaly of England being deprived of a buffer zone of the kind that Scotland and Wales enjoy is a breach of English people's human rights. That was an argument put forward by a group of residents who fought hard to try to prevent the opening of the Huntington lane site in Telford. They argued that when the UK signed the Human Rights Act 1998, it signed as the United Kingdom in its entirety, not as three separate entities, and that was enshrined in law in 2000. However, the planning application was approved under the previous Government by the then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government after a public inquiry.
	A detailed health impact assessment was demanded by Telford's local public health director, but was subsequently disregarded by the inspector and the previous Government, despite the fact that that seminal document was believed to be the only such assessment undertaken before the opening of an open-cast mine. The Secretary of State's closing comments in the decision paper sent from the Planning Inspectorate were:
	"The Secretary of State has had regard to The Friends of the Ercall's view that a breach of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights arises because of differences between the planning guidance which applies in England compared to that which applies in Scotland and that which applies in Wales (IR417 and IR570). The Secretary of State has considered this matter but he takes the view that differences in policy do not, in themselves, amount to discrimination. He is satisfied that, having assessed the appeal scheme against relevant national and local policies, he has given proper consideration to all relevant issues."
	Of course, one reason why that has become a major issue is that in the past 10 years a large majority of open-cast applications in England have been approved by the Secretary of State, in spite of opposition from parish, district and county councils. Hon. Members will note that the Localism Bill specifically excludes mineral policy; there will be no protection for local communities through the Localism Bill.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that with a buffer zone it would be easier for local people to accept some of those developments because they would know that they were protected?

Andrew Bridgen: I thank my hon. Friend for his comment, which is absolutely right. I shall bring it out further in my arguments.
	It has been argued that the open-cast industry has relied on what could be described as "hired gun" expert witnesses, to gain permission that mineral planning authorities have neither the expertise nor the resources-money, mostly-to contradict. Those hired guns regurgitate the same rhetoric at every application and inquiry, following Government guidance that actually tells them what to say. The fact that mineral policy will not be covered by the Localism Bill makes a buffer zone even more essential.
	Since 2005, owing to extreme industry lobbying and the argument based on need-industry need, not national need-being introduced as part of the planning guidance, "independent" planning inspectors have chosen to take the word of these "experts". That subverts the empirical evidence of communities who have seen more open-casting than the inspector, expert witnesses and most members of the contemporary open-cast industry.
	Each application that is passed weakens the position of local residents through the precedent set in planning case law, despite the fact that the supposed primary guidance, MPG3 (1999), which states that local authorities and local people are in the best position to assess the acceptability of an application, remains on the books. It seldom works. Under the last Government, the last 14 appeals on open-cast sites were all passed in the face of vocal local opposition. That gives the Secretary of State, who should be the last line of defence for local people, the perfect excuse to say, "I have to go with the experts."
	The position has become so bad that most local authorities simply wave through applications in England, whereas 10 years ago they would have been fought tooth and nail after being judged utterly unacceptable by local residents.

Alan Beith: What local authorities often do, certainly in Northumberland, is prefer to set conditions, rather than refuse, because then they have more control of the situation. But if a buffer zone was there anyway, it would give them rather more leeway. A degree of separation is sometimes one of the conditions that they try to set while they still have some control of the situation because they are granting permission.

Andrew Bridgen: I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution.
	There is an argument that open-cast mines generate local employment, but in many cases the effect has proved to be virtually zero for the affected communities. The employment is low and generally outsourced, and contributions to the affected local economies are minuscule. The social and environmental costs are borne by local residents, with no real benefit in return.
	The Campaign to Protect Rural England agrees. It states that
	"communities in England should have the same protection from the noise, dust and loss of landscape which can severely erode quality of life."
	My earlier point about the uncertainty in planning policy explains that. The certainty that a buffer zone would bring would be an improvement on the current situation for rural England and its residents. The Campaign to Protect Rural England also notes that open-cast coal mining has undergone a recent resurgence in the UK, mainly due to the increase in global coal and gas prices. However, it also states:
	"Not only do opencast mines deface some of our finest landscapes and wreck tranquillity, they can have a devastating effect on nearby communities and wildlife, while hindering efforts to reduce CO2 emissions."
	I will now move on to that last issue, for there is an environmental case for the buffer zone.
	It has been calculated that each tonne of coal used for power generation produces more than 2,000 kg of carbon dioxide. The Confederation of United Kingdom Coal Producers, an industry group, has been reported as stating that
	"the measure could lead to the loss or sterilisation of between 250 million and 500 million tonnes of reserves."
	Based on the figures provided by the Coal Authority, that is equal to between 48% and 97% of known surface-mine coal reserves in England, which, as previously stated, amount to around 516 million tonnes. If each tonne of coal burned for power generation produces 2,215 kg of carbon dioxide, preventing 250 million tonnes of coal from being burned would prevent them from becoming 550 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide. In that way, by passing the Bill, Parliament can make a major contribution to reducing climate change risks.
	To put the figures into a meaningful perspective, the average amount of coal consumed by power-generating companies in the UK between 2005 and 2009 was approximately 50 million tonnes per annum, which is equal to emitting an average of 111 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide. By passing the Bill, Parliament would permanently put the equivalent of five years' worth of CO2 production from UK power generation beyond reach and further stimulate the need to find alternative sources of energy.
	In view of that, I have also received backing for my Bill from Leicester Friends of the Earth, which stated:
	"Open-cast mining is extraordinarily destructive environmentally and can blight the lives of those living in nearby communities. We are delighted that Mr Bridgen has listened to the concerns of his constituents and chosen to introduce legislation on this issue."
	What is the need for those open-cast sites? England currently has 14 coal-fired power stations, five of which will close by 2015. Only two new coal-fired stations are planned. By 2015 we will need 3.4 million tonnes less coal for English power stations, which is 1.6 times the amount of all English open-cast coal mined in 2009. It could be argued that we are tearing up the countryside needlessly and using our emergency reserves when there is no emergency-the number of coal-fired power stations is falling.
	There are many reasons why the Bill should receive a Second Reading. It would clarify planning, bring English law into line with Scottish and Welsh law, about which we have already heard much today, help the country to take a significant step to meeting its environmental objectives and, most importantly, protect communities against the intrusive, defacing vandalism of our countryside.
	Do the residents of England not deserve the same protections as people in Scotland and Wales?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) on introducing the Bill. The Bill is extremely relevant and timely for my constituents, and I support it. I also thank him for mentioning Durham in his speech.
	The Bill is relevant for my constituents because they are currently facing a significant plan to develop two open-cast sites right on the northern boundary of my constituency. A number of the residents' concerns would be addressed by implementing the 500 metre buffer zone outlined in the Bill, which would give residents much greater protection.
	It must be the right time for the House to consider updating "Minerals Planning Guidance 3: Coal Mining and Colliery Spoil Disposal", which was implemented in 1999. That contains a number of sensible measures, but as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, a lot of planning case law since then does not seem to pay enough attention to the views of local communities. It must now be time to look at that and consider strengthening the legislation.
	The hon. Gentleman also made the excellent point that it is important to align our legislation with that in Scotland and Wales. Certainly residents in my constituency are looking to legislation in Scotland and asking serious questions about why they are not offered the same protection as people living less than 100 miles away. That is another matter that the House needs to look at seriously.
	It might be worth spending a couple of minutes considering why the proposed change is so essential for local communities, particularly those faced with planning applications or proposals about which they have major concerns. I want to take a current example from my constituency, in the village of Pittingdon. In doing so, I want to pay tribute to the local parish council, including Councillor Bill Kellet, and the local residents, who have orchestrated an excellent campaign to demonstrate their concerns. One of the proposed sites abuts housing along one long boundary, just a few metres from a range of properties. Any workings, should they subsequently be approved, would inflict environmental pollution on residents in a number of forms. There would be dust, first from the extraction and removal process, and later from the infill operations. Obviously there would also be noise pollution; that would be inevitable given the digging that would be required. Even though measures could be taken to reduce the noise, it would not be possible, because of the close proximity of the workings to the houses, to minimise it to an acceptable level for residents. There would also be dirt from the wheels of vehicles transporting materials, and from the materials themselves that are associated with open-cast operations.
	In addition to the effect on residents, the proposed site is in close proximity to an ancient church. All the people associated with it are very concerned about any impact on that church, and also about any impact on a site of special scientific interest. There could also be effects on the water table, from which water is drawn for local residents, and that is without taking into account the wider issues of the additional traffic and air pollution that could come from such workings. There is therefore a whole range of serious issues for local residents. Although those issues would not be dismissed entirely by a 500 metre buffer zone, they would certainly be ameliorated to a large extent. That is what is so helpful about the Bill.
	I want to raise some other points about any possible infill. I do not want to make this afternoon's debate a discussion about the value of open-cast mining per se. It is probably possible for some open-cast mining sites to be developed throughout the country, provided that they are chosen sensitively, and provided that whatever restoration is carried out afterwards is an improvement on what currently exists. Indeed, that is another matter that should be considered, because many footpaths and walks for local residents on the proposed site in Pittingdon would be disrupted by open-cast mining works, but not necessarily restored in any subsequent works, which is worth bearing in mind.
	I am extremely happy to be able to support the Bill. In general, planning processes should take more notice of local residents' feelings, pay more attention to what they say and act on their concerns. I very much hope that our concerns will be listened to this afternoon, and that the House will give its full backing to the Bill with some alacrity, so that those of us who are waiting for the debate on the Apprenticeships and Skills (Public Procurement Contracts) Bill will get the chance to support that one as well.

Heather Wheeler: I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour, the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) on bringing his important private Member's Bill to the House. It is also a delight to follow the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods).
	My constituency abuts that of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire. The open-cast mining that has been going on in South Derbyshire for the past 20 years has finally come to an end, and I can talk from great experience about the atrocious blight that such mining causes for residents. My hon. Friend has planning applications coming along, and it is important that the Bill should be successful so that some clarity can be brought to the process and the Government can help with statutory instruments or planning guidance notes, whichever view they take after this debate.
	It is interesting that, in the past, open-cast mining has been described as a beneficial economic asset to our country. That might be true, but I do not think that anyone living in the same neighbourhood as such a mine would agree with that assessment. The Bill is incredibly reasonable, because it talks about exceptional circumstances. I can attest to the fact that, when the properties across the road from us were being developed, the coal was dug out to ensure that those properties were safe when they were built. Of course everyone accepted that that needed to be done. There are now seven excellent properties that we would not have had if the reasonableness test had not been taken into account.
	Mr Deputy Speaker, please accept my apologies for being unable to stay until the end of the debate. I have been invited to meet the Kashmiri women of Pakistan this afternoon, which will be slightly different from discussing open-cast mining. One takes one's opportunities where they arise. The Bill is short, discreet and reasonable-

Andrew Bridgen: Just like me!

Heather Wheeler: I could not possibly put that in  Hansard. I will leave that to my hon. Friend.
	I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will take the Bill on board. Having sat through this morning's debate on the West Lothian question, I believe that the time has come for fairness, and I hope that this reforming Government will bring fairness into the future.

Nigel Mills: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) on bringing forward his Bill. He made a very persuasive case for the need for these measures in his own constituency and many others around the country, and that case is no less strong in my constituency, which is in the heart of the old Derbyshire coalfields and has a long history of deep and surface mining. We currently have one operating surface mine, which was approved on appeal, the application having been turned down by the county council about six years ago. An application has been made to extend the site further, and a second application has been made in relation to a site only a couple of miles away from the existing one.
	It is important to note that the Bill does not seek to ban open-cast mining across England, although many people would like that to happen. Instead, it seeks to protect people from some of the worst aspects of the blight that could arise if they were unlucky enough to have an application for an open-cast mine near to where they live. The planning system always seeks to strike a balance between allowing what some people regard as an essential activity and protecting the needs of those who live nearest to that activity and have to put up with it. Most hon. Members would probably agree that we have not yet struck that balance in English planning law and guidance on open-cast mining, but we believe that our colleagues in Scotland and Wales have addressed the problem by introducing a 500 metre buffer zone. We have spent most of today debating the need for fairness for England in relation to Scotland and Wales, and perhaps this Bill represents an extension of that principle. If that is right planning policy in Scotland and Wales, I fail to understand why it is not the right planning policy for England as well.
	Before I turn to deal with the detail of the Bill, it is worth going over some of the reasons why we need this measure. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) mentioned that the previous Government tried to tighten up the planning guidelines in the late 1990s. That had some success for a few years, but as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire alluded to, as time moved on there were more and more successful appeals, including one in my constituency, which showed that the current guidance was not strong enough to achieve what we wanted it to achieve. We thus need to strengthen it.
	Having the buffer zone will improve the position in two main respects-the impact of noise and the impact of dust from the sites on people who live nearby. There are planning annexes on both noise and dust, published by the previous Government, which are worth looking at. The noise annexe to minerals policy statement 2 includes the comment that
	"it may be appropriate to incorporate a buffer zone around the operations",
	but there is no definition of the buffer zone. Paragraph 1.1. of the dust annexe states that
	"residents can potentially be affected by dust up to 1 km from the source",
	and paragraph 1.36 says that
	"it is preferable that dust-generating activities are separated by a stand-off distance from residential properties"
	but again there is no definition of the stand-off area or the buffer zone.
	On meeting the planning authorities that are dealing with an application, we might say, "Can we have a separation zone and stop the site going 50 metres or 70 metres from the nearest property; or can we have a limit of 500 metres?" The planning officer is likely to say, "Well, why 500 metres and not 450, or why 450 metres and not 400?" It is easy to get into a horrible spiral in which no matter what buffer zone is thought to be right, implementing it cannot be justified. That is why it is so important for us to set guidance specifying a 500 metre separation zone.
	Those who have dealt with applications will know that guidance often says that the applicant must take steps and provide measures to ensure that noise is not increased by more than 10 dB over the previous ambient noise level. However, anyone who has dealt with the planning process will also know that, typically, noise is measured at a very strange time for determining loudness or on a day when the weather is most suitable for a low measurement. There is also the well-known trick of carrying out traffic studies at half-term, when half the traffic is not on the road. Then there are assessments that a 6 metre-high noise bund will stop huge amounts of noise, when there is no real way of disproving it-consultants often say different things. We end up with a situation in which the wind blows the wrong way and the noise is incredibly higher than the 10 dB level.
	All those subjective tests with which the planning authorities have to wrestle are not achieving the right balance and they are making it hard for planning authorities successfully to turn down applications. The mining companies with the threat hanging over them might say that if the application is turned down they will appeal, have a public inquiry or go to the Secretary of State. Some have even threatened to seek costs against the county council. The situation is not fair; it needs to change.
	The 500 metre buffer zone will not resolve all the issues that residents face. There are two applications current in my constituency. The residents of Smalley already have to contend with a site that has been going for a couple of years, and they are now faced with several more years of it. They face the blight of 90 lorries coming in and out and of the blasting and the noise from the mine, perhaps within 70 metres-under the new application-of some of the houses. The residents of Denby village face the same problem within 50, 60, 70 or 100 metres of their houses. They, too, would be protected by the proposed measures.
	The Bill is not a panacea; it will not improve every problem that residents face, but it will give them the assurance that such developments cannot encroach within 500 metres of their homes. It will help to take out some of the noise and the dust. I wholeheartedly support the Bill. I hope that it will proceed through its stages. I cannot imagine why the Government or the Opposition would not want it to succeed. It is an effective measure in Wales and Scotland, so let us have it in England, too.

Alan Beith: I welcome the initiative of the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) in bringing this Bill forward. It has a valuable contribution to make to dealing with the problems of open-cast. My constituency probably has, or has had, more open-cast in it than any other in the whole of the north of England. It has been going on for many years. They used not to bother about buffer zones when they first started open-cast in my constituency; they just removed the villages. That is what happened in Radcliffe and in Chevington Drift. The one benefit, of course, was the people got new houses, albeit in places a little distance away.
	A secondary benefit was that in some cases derelict land was restored by the open-cast process. To this day, employment is generated by open-cast mining. Some of that employment is mobile, as contractors bring workers from other sites, but it is still significant. In more recent years, we have secured the community benefit of significant amounts of money and new community facilities in some of the villages as a result. As other hon. Members have pointed out, however, the residents living closest to the activity experience noise, dust and the loss of the attractiveness of the surrounding environment, often for the rest of their lives. That especially affects retired people, the remainder of whose lives, in which they had hoped to enjoy their garden quietly, is blighted by the presence of open-cast.
	Some of the communities have already been affected, and to some extent scarred, by deep mining. That is true in Ellington, for example. In such areas, it is not just a question of one application and one open-cast site; when that is over, another comes along, and then another. Of course, that provides continuity of employment, but it also provides continuity of disturbance, noise, dust and all the other problems. The communities of Widdrington village, Widdrington Station and Stobswood have been encircled by open-cast, which continues, with further applications into the future. The least that those people deserve is recognition that there should be a protective distance between their homes and open-cast sites, and certainty, when people buy houses in the area, that there will not be an open-cast site at the bottom of the garden. That is a serious worry for people who think that at some point they will have to sell their house and move, or for those who would like to move away from open-cast, having had 20 or 30 years of it, to an area where it is not present, and who want the opportunity to sell their home.
	I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), who is answering the debate and taking forward Government policy, will recognise that we all understand that there must be a balance between the nation's energy requirements and the consequences for communities of meeting the requirements for deep mining, open-cast mining and power generation. However, those areas that have had constant open-cast mining over a period deserve a recognition that the time has come when the industry must move on to other areas, and a more immediate protection from the threat of open-cast mining close to their homes. I hope, therefore, that the concept of the buffer zone can be built into our planning as it is in Scotland and Wales.

Dan Byles: I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) on his Bill. His constituency neighbours mine, and the areas that he has discussed, such as the village of Measham, are very close to the border with my constituency. We have issues in common. My constituency of North Warwickshire also has a mixed history with open-cast mining-I say "mixed" because the area is traditionally a coal-mining area, and deep mines and open-cast coal mines have provided sources of employment and been a fundamental part of the community in such areas for many decades.
	However, the impact of open-cast coal mining on the environment of towns and villages such as Polesworth, Dordon and the surrounding area, has been enormous. Thankfully, open-cast coal mining no longer takes place in North Warwickshire, and I assure the House that there is no appetite locally for it to return. In the past few years, however, there has been a fear that it might rear its head again. I believe that to be a broadly misguided but understandable fear, which is a result of Warwickshire county council consulting on a new minerals core strategy. The council is obliged by law to consult on the minerals core strategy-it cannot simply ignore the coal underneath the ground-so the consultation was required. That was taken by some local people as a sign that the county council was looking to welcome open-cast back, and I received some letters suggesting that it was inviting UK Coal to come in and start open-cast coal mining. I assure people that that is not the case. As the consultation is going-it is not yet over-I am pleased that it looks as if the coal in the ground around the village of Shuttington, in particular, is likely to be safeguarded. That means, of course, that the risk is still there, but it is no higher than it was last year, five years ago or earlier. At the end of the day, the coal is under the ground and we cannot do anything about it. The best that we can hope for is the safeguarding of the coal. The uncertainty and the blight remain, because there is always the possibility that one day someone will come along and try to dig out the coal using open-cast methods. That is why I consider the Bill so important.
	Some people have said to me that 500 metres does not sound very much. Let me remind the House of the brief history that we were given by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire of the situation in Ffos-y-Fran in Merthyr Tydfil, where there are houses 36 metres from the edge of the open-cast pit. As we heard, Wales now benefits from the protection of a 500-metre buffer zone. Unfortunately it was introduced after the development of the Ffos-y-Fran site, too late to help the people of Merthyr Tydfil, but the fact is that it is entirely wrong for the people of Wales and Scotland to have that protection when the people of England do not. I hope that the Bill, together with planning reform and the developing localism agenda-although the current Localism Bill does not cover this issue-will bring an end to the trampling of local communities by central Government.
	In 2004 the then Energy Minister-coincidentally, my predecessor as Member of Parliament for North Warwickshire-wrote to the Welsh Assembly urging its members to impose an open-cast coal mine, against the wishes of the people living near Ffos-y-Fran. In his letter, dated December 2004 and obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, he wrote:
	"May I take this opportunity to say how pleased I was to hear that the East Pit opencast development has been approved...The Planning Decision Committee's acceptance of the Inspector's conclusions that the need for coal and the economic benefits would outweigh the harm to the environment and the amenity of local residents is particularly noteworthy. I hope that these arguments will also carry weight with the committee which decides the Ffos y Fran application".
	I do not want to see Ministers in London overrule local councils and local people and impose open-cast coal mines 36 metres from people's doors, and I therefore hope that my hon. Friend's Bill will be passed.

Anna Soubry: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) on his Bill, and offer it my wholehearted support. I shall not rehearse all the arguments that have been presented so ably by so many Members, but it is clear to me that there is cross-party agreement not only on the buffer zone but on the horrors of open-cast mining, of which many Members who are present have experience. It is to be hoped that, if nothing else, an all-party group will emerge from this, so that together we can try to ensure that our communities who are working so hard to oppose open-cast mining benefit from all the support, advice and experience that can be brought to bear.
	The Bill is relevant to my constituents, who currently face the third application from UK Coal to develop an open-cast mine near the villages of Cossall and Trowell. Mercifully, both my predecessors were successful in spearheading the campaign against other applications, and I hope to repeat their success. The application is to mine 1.275 million tonnes of coal and almost a quarter of a million tonnes of fire clay over an area of 130 hectares.
	Broxtowe contains an abundance of houses, and we do not have much green belt land. The application relates to the heart of that precious land, and it fills many of us with horror, not just because of the dust and noise that many Members have mentioned but because there will be some eight lorry movements an hour. We can imagine the impact that that will have, not just on the residents of Cossall and Trowell but on all the other communities that will be affected. It is surely unacceptable in this modern age to extract minerals such as coal and other substances in that way. It inflicts real blight on our countryside, and it has a direct impact on the quality of people's lives.
	I do not want to go on much longer because so much has been said very ably and I would just repeat those arguments. I fully endorse all those comments. However, I make this plea. It is about localism. Other hon. Members have referred to that, but I hope that the Minister, whatever the Government's attitude might be to this excellent Bill-I hope that they will adopt it-hears what is coming out loudly and clearly from Members and their areas. I do not know of any application that has not been opposed by every parish, borough and county affected-they have done that not just as a group, but individually. Almost without exception, democratically elected representatives in my area and areas represented by other hon. Members on both sides of the House have opposed these applications. Invariably, they go to appeal and unfortunately, as we all know, they are signed off by the Secretary of state. With great respect, that flies in the face of what we say we now all believe in, which is localism.

Nigel Mills: Does my hon. Friend agree that local councils and MPs oppose these applications not because of nimbyism but generally on strong, robust planning grounds that are entirely consistent with planning policy? That is why it is so incredibly frustrating that their decisions get overturned at appeal by the Secretary of State, who seems just to fly in the face of planning policy.

Anna Soubry: I could not agree more. I am grateful for that intervention and I fully support it. It is deeply ironic.
	The other important matter to be considered is this. I know from the fight that has been put up in Cossall and in Trowell that local councils and local people find themselves in a battle with UK Coal, which has a number of resources, including the ability to instruct experts. Already our hard-pressed parish and town councils are looking at how they can raise funds. There is just the beginning of an equality of arms, but as my hon. Friend has said, invariably, the county council opposes these applications for sound planning reasons. It is not a question of nimbyism. Many of those county councillors are not affected; they do not represent those areas, but they accept the argument that they should oppose the application on planning grounds. Unfortunately, however, the Secretary of State, after the inquiry, if it goes to an inquiry, takes a different view.
	These applications take many years. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire and others have campaigned for years. The process has in effect barely begun. Many years of campaigning lie ahead. We face that in my constituency. It means that for years people have that awful blight hanging over their head. They do not know whether their beautiful, precious, highly treasured countryside will be blighted and scarred for ever by open-cast mining.
	I hope that the Government will support the Bill and that the Minister will take from it the strength of feeling among Members on both sides of the House on the issue. The buffer zone may not be a panacea but it would be a great help and assist our local authorities in making planning decisions on such applications.

Jack Dromey: The planning regime necessarily needs to strike a balance between development and the legitimate protection of local communities and the environment. I am familiar personally with the issue of open-cast coal mining. May I declare an interest? In my former being as deputy general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, as it was then known, I was responsible for energy policy and the membership employed in open-cast coal mines. In the debates over many years on energy policy, it was right that we should seek-Governments of both political persuasions sought to do this-to maximise indigenous sources of supply and to develop a balanced energy policy, drawing on a wide range of sources of supply, including nuclear, renewables and coal, both deep-mined and open-cast, which are partners, not opposites, in any sensible energy policy. We therefore do not agree with any view that holds that there should be no place for open-cast coal mining. On the other hand, it was an error of historic proportions that our deep-mine coal industry was allowed to decline as it was, not least because we still have 300 years of supply. Coal is an energy source that now comes into its own, particularly with the development of clean coal technology.
	Any development-nuclear, coal or renewables-requires permission, and if it is granted, jobs are created. It cannot be right, however, for any open-cast coal mine development fundamentally to disturb a local community's peace and tranquillity. As was said earlier, developers are more likely to be granted permission if they take local communities' legitimate concerns properly into account.
	We congratulate the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) on introducing the Bill, which rightly addresses genuine concerns felt by communities across Britain. It is clear from the contributions made from both sides of the House, including by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), that there is broad cross-party support for the Bill.
	There are four main reasons why the Bill is worthy. First, the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire is right that Scotland and Wales already have the 500-metre buffer zone between open-cast mines and residential areas. Secondly, the Bill will help to reduce pollution in communities where there are proposals to open open-cast mines. Thirdly, the communities affected by open-cast coal mining universally support the Bill. Fourthly, the Bill will legally define coal operators' obligations to local communities, which is right. The hon. Gentleman was also right to say that the Bill is important not only because there are 29 current open-cast sites, but because 34 sites are proposed for the next stage of development.
	Under the Labour Government, some progress in the right direction was made, such as through the planning policy assumptions relating to extraction. That addressed the 500-metre issue, and there was a caveat that ultimately led to successful challenges being mounted to developments unacceptably close to residential areas. We believe this is a worthy Bill, which deserves to be given a fair wind for its next parliamentary stages. It can also be strongly argued that England should come into line with Scotland and Wales, and that local communities in different areas should enjoy the same protection.
	The Bill is particularly well timed because the Committee stage of the Localism Bill is currently commencing. The point was made that the Localism Bill's measures do not satisfactorily address the issues of great public interest and concern that are raised in this Bill. We will support the Bill therefore, and we urge Ministers to respond positively to the strong representations on it made by Members on both sides of the House.

Andrew Stunell: I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) on his success in the ballot, on presenting his case so cogently and on attracting a lot of cross-party support for his Bill. I must stress at the outset that I cannot discuss the merits of any live planning application because the Secretary of State's role in the planning system means that I would be prejudicing it to do so. A lot of sites were mentioned by hon. Members who were, quite reasonably, advancing the case for the Bill and, in some cases, discussing applications, prospective or otherwise. I am sorry to disappoint hon. Members, but I am not able to respond to those points.
	I have a little history on this matter myself. When I was a prospective candidate, as the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire was before he was successful at the most recent election, I appeared at a public inquiry on the application for open-cast coal mining at Towers Farm, near the village of Poynton, on the edge of what is now my constituency.  [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) is telling the House that he was born there. I am happy to report to the House, as I was happy to report to my electors at the time, that the public inquiry came out in favour of no open-cast coal mining. Although most people see my constituency as a leafy suburban area adjacent to a national park, it has the same coal beneath it as is under the constituencies of the hon. Members for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) and for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), so I fully understand the high level of public concern about these applications. The concerns about the environmental protection lost as a result of the intrusion of these developments and about the dust are often well justified.

Nigel Mills: I think that we all fully appreciate that the Minister cannot comment on individual applications, but may I press him to comment a little on the annoyance that people feel when county councils turn down applications on valid planning grounds and they see Secretaries of State completely override local opinion? Is that approach appropriate? Does he think it might change a little under his Government?

Andrew Stunell: I am glad the hon. Gentleman made that point because during his earlier remarks he stated as a fact that a Secretary of State automatically approves applications that come before him-or her, as was the case in previous Administrations. As a matter of fact, the Secretary of State refused the most recent appeal put before him relating to a site in Yorkshire, so it is not right to say that he takes an arbitrary view that every application should be approved and I would not want the record to suggest that he does. When an application comes before him, he has to adopt a quasi-judicial approach that takes account of the different factors in play, and I shall say something about what those factors are in a few moments. It would clearly be wrong for him to have an arbitrary pre-disposition, either for or against every application. So despite what the hon. Gentleman might wish or fear to be the case about the Secretary of State's approach, it has to be objective and balanced. The Secretary of State's approach must take account of all the factors that he ought to take into account and exclude all the factors that he ought not to take into account. I believe that that is the legal phraseology, although I am not a lawyer.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will the Minister explain whether the change in government has been accompanied by a change in the Secretary of State's basic application of principles? Does the localism agenda of this Government mean that a Secretary of State may be more willing now to allow the decision to be made locally than was the case in the past?

Andrew Stunell: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I shall discuss later. In outline, the Government's approach is that local communities should have greater capacity to influence the nature of their future growth and development, which is why we removed the regional spatial strategies and why we are placing a huge amount of emphasis on the neighbourhood planning system.
	The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who speaks for the Opposition, and I are currently wading through the Localism Bill, and we will shortly consider the provisions relating to planning. I do not know whether we will reach a common view, because he has perhaps indicated that he is not convinced that localism is the way to go. I look forward to that discussion in the coming week or so.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed asked whether there will be a change in emphasis and balance in the way in which the Secretary of State approaches such matters. When the Localism Bill is enacted, such matters will not be exclusively for the Secretary of State, because some of them will be devolved. In a few minutes, I will discuss the national planning policy framework, which is a development of current national planning guidance. It is clearly important to take that into account in respect of minerals policy and the use of coal.
	Several hon. Members have spoken in the debate. I have commented on what my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire said in introducing the Bill. He stood up strongly for one local community, Minorca, which some of us thought was in the Mediterranean but is clearly much closer to home, and set out stories of blight from around the country. He emphasised the widespread support for his Bill.

Andrew Bridgen: I was discussing the Minorca Opencast Protest Group. The old mine is the Minorca site, which is just outside the village of Measham at the southern end of North West Leicestershire.

Andrew Stunell: Coming to Parliament is an educational process, and I am delighted to have learned yet another place name. That protest group has attracted the hon. Gentleman's support, which I fully understand. That led him to introduce his Bill, which in turn generated a lot of support from around the country for his cause.
	The hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) made some strong, cross-party points in supporting the hon. Gentleman's case, as did the hon. Member for South Derbyshire, who is not in her place, and the hon. Member for Amber Valley.
	My long-standing right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed also made some points. He discussed my first point, which concerns the need to strike a balance between the competing needs of local communities and national policy. In that respect, he discussed the possibility of local authorities developing and implementing buffer zones to provide local protection for communities. I assure him that it is both possible and right for local authorities in developing their planning policies to consider buffer zones on a case-by-case basis.
	The separation distance would have to be justified. Of course, some local planning authorities have such buffer zones in place.

Alan Beith: My hon. Friend does not quite get the point. Something is not a buffer zone as we understand it if is dealt with on a case-by-case basis. It is a reasonable expectation in almost all conceivable circumstances that there will be a set minimum distance, which does not have to become a battle ground between the local authority and the developer or on an issue that might be overturned on appeal.

Andrew Stunell: Whether a condition appears as part of a council's adopted and approved local plan-for instance, the Northumberland unitary council development plan-or is imposed by the Secretary of State or, indeed, by legislation makes no material difference. I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the Scottish and Welsh buffer zones, as they have been described, or bans have been prayed in aid. I also draw his attention to the explanatory notes produced by the Library. They make it quite clear that the policy on open-cast mining in Scotland does indeed have a presumption on 500 metres, but it is subject to some quite important exceptions. They say:
	"Site boundaries within 500m of the edge of a community may be acceptable where it would result in improvement of local amenity or future development opportunities by clearing an area of derelict or despoiled land, the stabilisation of an undermined site or similar benefit. Topography, the nature of the landscape, visibility and prevailing wind directions may result in a greater or lesser distance being required, depending on specific local circumstances."
	So a number of important caveats relate to the Scottish buffer zone, which has been prayed in aid. As I understand current planning law and what the law will be after the passage of the Localism Bill, it would be perfectly open to Northumberland unitary authority to decide to adopt such a planning approach. Whatever the planning approach -whether it is statutory, as in Scotland, or based on the development of the local planning system-it would of necessity have to take account of particular circumstances.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I am listening to the Minister with some interest but growing concern. Is he arguing that the measures in the Bill are, in fact, contained in the Localism Bill and that this Bill is unnecessary, in which case I would have very great concerns, or is he suggesting that the Government are backing this Bill, which is what everyone wants to happen today?

Andrew Stunell: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Perhaps if I make a little more progress, the factors that we have to take into account when we consider our approach to the Bill will become clear.

Christopher Chope: Will the Minister perhaps say whether the Government support, tolerate or oppose the Bill? Why do we need to wait any longer to hear a one-word answer to that question?

Andrew Stunell: Let me set out my case.

Anna Soubry: Just tell us!

Andrew Stunell: I will set out my case. Let us be clear: coal extraction, like other mineral extraction, is different from most other sources of development. The resource can be extracted only exactly where it lies. Coal extraction is not footloose, like housing or retail development. If it is turned down in one field, it cannot simply move to the next field. Such things are not permanent operations. After extraction, the land must be restored to high environmental standards.

Chris Bryant: Many Members in the Chamber feel passionately about this issue because it directly affects their constituents. Two hon. Members have asked the Minister a direct question: do the Government support, oppose or tolerate the Bill? It seems that the Minister is trying to talk for another half hour, but that would be cowardly and would not answer-

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not mean that and that he will take back the word "cowardly".

Chris Bryant: Obviously I am not saying that the Minister is being cowardly, but if he were to do that, he would be cowardly.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the word "cowardly" in this case.

Chris Bryant: If that is your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to withdraw the word, but I want the Minister to answer the question directly for the people in the constituencies that are most affected, because otherwise he is a disgrace.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We should not get carried away. Minister, I am sure that you have heard the points-you carry on.

Andrew Stunell: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	I can assure the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that before we get to 2.30 pm, he will understand the Government's view of the Bill. There will no doubt be further opportunities for Members to interrogate me about our decision and the way in which we reached it.

Anna Soubry: We are all here to help the Minister. We just want to know, please, whether he is for the Bill, against it or neutral. This is the third or fourth time that the question has been asked.

Andrew Stunell: I do not want to irritate the House further, so let me say, in plain words, that the Government do not support the Bill. I shall explain why as we proceed; I would not want to cause any more friction than I might anyway.
	The extraction of coal is different from other considerations. The operation is not permanent or long term, and nowadays there are now always requirements for the restoration of land to high environmental standards, which can sometimes involve great biodiversity benefits.
	The period of extraction will vary considerable, depending on the availability of resources, but most coal operations last for a far shorter period than stone extraction or crushed rock operations, for example. However, I recognise that three or five years-or perhaps longer-is still a considerable time for local people to put up with such development, which is why environmental effects are properly considered at the outset and monitored throughout the life of a site's operation. It also explains why it is important that we get the right balance between the need for coal on the one hand, and coal extraction's environmental impact on local communities on the other hand. I hope that I have gone some way to demonstrate that I have first-hand understanding of that second point.
	Our debate so far has lacked any serious consideration of the role of coal in the United Kingdom's energy mix, although the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington sketched in a small amount of detail. Energy policy is a matter for the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. The Government recognise the need for a low-carbon economy and that any credible strategy for tackling climate change must include a consideration of the country's energy needs.

Jack Dromey: The Minister's prolonged justification of the Government's position is fascinating. As he has set out that position, however, may I press him to bring his remarks to a conclusion before 2.30 pm so that this worthy Bill can proceed to Committee?

Andrew Stunell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that, but we have had something approaching an hour's exposition of the local balance; it is only right for me to say something about the national factors, which also have to be taken into account.
	The House needs to recognise that coal continues to play an important role in our energy mix and is likely to continue to do so for the foreseeable future. It is a reliable form of energy and it makes a significant contribution to meeting UK energy demand; the figure is about 30%. Coal production in the UK has declined significantly in the past few years, but coal mining is still a significant industry in this country. The indigenous coal industry supplies 35% of our national coal demand.

Chris Bryant: That has nothing to do with the Bill.

Andrew Stunell: It has a great deal to do with the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman will understand in just a moment.

Dan Byles: The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), told the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change that he did not see a future for unabated coal-fired power stations in this country. There is no working carbon capture and storage coal power station anywhere in the world, and there are many question marks over whether CCS technology with coal will ever be commercially viable. Given that, does the Under-Secretary believe that there is an imminent shortage of domestic coal production in the UK that requires an expansion of open-cast coal mining in the next 10 to 15 years?

Andrew Stunell: I cannot say that I represent the view of the Department of Energy and Climate Change, but we are talking not about expending production but maintaining it. It is in the nature of extraction that once a site has had all its coal removed, it is no longer viable for coal production and new sites have to be developed. At the moment, 35% of UK coal consumption is provided for by UK coal extraction. That not only provides jobs-a point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington-but reduces the cost of imports.
	To respond to the point about carbon capture and storage made by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles), the coalition agreement outlined plans to support the development of four plants with carbon capture and storage technology, which can reduce emissions from coal-fired power stations by about 90%. I understand that formal proposals are under consideration at the moment. The Government's main policy objective for coal is to ensure that the United Kingdom is able to make the best use of a valuable natural resource where it is economically viable and environmentally acceptable to do so.
	Indigenous reserves contribute towards the Government's energy objectives on affordability, and form part of the policy on security of energy supply. The reality is that much of UK's coal reserves lie in England. They have the potential to provide security of energy supply long after oil and natural gas are exhausted, so we need to ensure that we can preserve coal for future extraction.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: That is an exceptionally interesting point: we may need to go back to coal when other fossil fuels have run out. Might the Government not therefore consider it appropriate to have a 550-yard limit, as I prefer to call it, until such time as it is necessary to dig out substantial quantities of coal again?

Andrew Stunell: I have already made the point that, as I understand it, the UK coal industry does not see itself expanding the amount that it extracts; it looks to maintain the amount that it extracts. My understanding from the last time I took a detailed look at UK energy reserves is that we have something like 200 years' worth of identified coal reserves. That is clearly much more substantial than the amount of oil and gas that can be recovered within the confines of the United Kingdom's economic sphere. Existing planning policy already places considerable emphasis on ensuring that the environmental effects of mineral extraction, including coal extraction, are mitigated.
	There are specific planning policies on coal in England. Hon. Members have referred to minerals planning policy guidance note 3, which carries a presumption against surface coal mining extraction unless the proposal meets stringent tests. That connects back to the points made about the Secretary of State's role. There is a presumption against surface coal mining extraction unless stringent tests are met. Those tests relate to environmental acceptability and the provision of local and community benefits; it is necessary to demonstrate that those clearly outweigh the likely impacts.

Stewart Jackson: Does the Minister foresee the issue of open-cast mining being part of the future requirement for local authorities to work together and co-operate on infrastructure planning, as outlined in the Localism Bill?

Andrew Stunell: My hon. Friend is right. The Localism Bill introduces a new duty on local authorities to co-operate. That is designed to provide a framework for local authorities to work jointly on common issues. My hon. Friend could also have mentioned the local enterprise partnerships, which are formed from a number of local authorities working with the private and commercial sector and aim to promote growth and future prosperity in an area. They will want to look at all sources of economic growth in their areas. There will be a framework in which that can take place.
	Proposals for open-cast mining in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites designated for nature conservation purposes must meet additional tests because of the serious impact that minerals development may have on the natural beauty of such areas. My hon. Friends the Members for Amber Valley and for South Derbyshire have a combination of community impact and natural landscape value impact to take into account. There is a requirement and expectation that all proposals for coal extraction must be accompanied by an environmental statement. That allows a thorough consideration of all environmental effects and what must be done to ensure that they can be kept to an acceptable minimum.

Dan Byles: I am curious to know whether the Minister agrees with the then Energy Secretary, my predecessor as MP for North Warwickshire, who in 2004 wrote to the Welsh Assembly saying that the need for coal outweighs environmental issues and the amenities of local people?

Andrew Stunell: I hope that my hon. Friend will gain some reassurance from the fact that the most recent application that came in front of the Secretary of State demonstrates that the national test does not outweigh the local environmental test. The Secretary of State could not have-and, the evidence shows, has not had-a closed mind, as my hon. Friend fears.
	Current policy recognises that, in individual circumstances, it could be appropriate to have an adequate separation distance between the boundary of a minerals site and the nearest community. Any such distance must be properly justified. I have already said that local planning authorities-in Northumberland, for instance-are free to do that. The coalition Government believe that councils are best placed to make planning decisions for their local areas, and it is right that they should be free to carry on their role with minimal interference.

Nigel Mills: I struggle with the point that the Minister is making. Does he really think that all the councils that have consistently tried to defeat such planning applications have somehow missed the idea of putting a 500 metre separation zone in their planning policy, and that saying, "Change your policy and put that in," will stand up to scrutiny when applications are made and subsequently go to appeal? We need national protection to support planning authorities that are trying to implement that policy, which they are struggling to do at this point.

Andrew Stunell: The Scottish and Welsh situations have quite often been prayed in aid during the debate. However, in both places the buffer zone is a matter of planning policy rather than of statutory requirement. We believe that councils are best placed to make those planning decisions, just as we are content for the Assembly in Wales and the Scottish Parliament to make those decisions for their respective countries.

Nigel Mills: The Bill asks the Minister to issue that planning policy guidance for England. If the planning policy sets out the 500 metre mark-in some situations, that could be wider or narrower-we will at least have a decent, robust starting point. We understand that that may be varied in local circumstances, but the problem at the moment is that councils struggle to justify 50 metres versus 400, 300, 200 or 150 metres, ending up with open-cast mines that are 30, 50 or 70-odd metres from people's houses, such as the proposal at Lodge House in my constituency. That is just not acceptable.

Andrew Stunell: Although it is very tempting, I cannot talk about specific cases. The hon. Gentleman has highlighted that a minimum zone ought to be left in any given circumstance, and the appropriate body to take that decision is the local planning authority.

Stewart Jackson: If I may come to the Minister's assistance, there is an established precedent in respect of the development of residential accommodation near to major national energy infrastructure such as gas pipelines. That is already established in planning policy guidelines, and it is robustly interpreted by many local planning authorities. It is not beyond the wit of man or beast to extend that arrangement for open-cast mining.

Andrew Stunell: The relevant consideration with gas pipelines is safety. Similar points have been made, and sometimes advanced in private Members' Bills, about high-voltage power lines and things of that sort. There are different considerations, but my hon. Friend quite correctly points out that national policy is appropriate to take account of factors such as safety. However, when it comes to environmental factors and the impact of a development on a local community, the right place for making a decision is at the local level. Local authorities should be free to carry out their role with the minimum of national interference.
	That, of course, is exactly the circumstance in Scotland and Wales. Planning is devolved to those Administrations, and they are entitled to have different policies to meet their particular situations-and even now, before the passage of the Localism Bill, so are local authorities in England. That will be even more the case once that Bill becomes an Act.
	The Planning (Opencast Mining Separation Zones) Bill aims to align more closely the policies of Scotland, Wales and England. At the moment, all three countries must have a system where planning applications are decided on their merits after consideration of all relevant planning issues, including the likely effect of the proposed development on the surrounding area. Having different approaches to the same end is exactly what diversity and devolution mean. The passage of a Bill requiring the imposition-if that is the right word-of a fixed separation distance would in fact go beyond the requirement in Wales and Scotland, where that is covered by planning policies.

Dan Byles: I am interested in the Minister's suggestion that somehow this is a localist issue. Can he therefore explain why minerals extraction was specifically excluded from the Localism Bill?

Andrew Stunell: Yes, I can. It is because minerals extraction will form part of the national planning policy framework. In that respect, it is no different from-or, perhaps I should say, it at least starts from the baseline of-the current situation, in that national planning policy covers mineral extraction, whether of coal or other materials, and overrides local planning control. The national planning policy framework will be different, although I shall say more about that in a few minutes.

Dan Byles: I am sorry, but I am now utterly confused. I know that I am new to this place, but is mineral extraction something that needs to be dealt with nationally, as the Minister appeared to say just now, or is he saying that it should not be subject to a national policy, as under this Bill, but left to local authorities? He appears to have completely contradicted himself.

Andrew Stunell: No, there is no contradiction, and I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman. The current position is that decisions at the local level on the extraction of minerals have to be taken with regard to the existing note 3, to which I have already referred, but with safeguards-

Andrew Bridgen: I hate to say this to the Minister, but I think he is digging a big hole for himself on this issue, and we will be back.

Andrew Stunell: The fundamental lay-out of coal, which is not in the control of the Government-it was established about 200 million years ago-means that a 500 metre buffer zone has an entirely different impact on coal extraction in Scotland and Wales. Indeed, the imposition of buffer zones there had little immediate impact on the industry's ability to extract coal, regardless of the environmental impact.

Anna Soubry: The Minister gave way previously just as he was in the middle of explaining the Government's view on whether something was a local decision or whether the national guidelines would override any local decision. I am sure that I speak for many Members when I say that we would be very grateful if he would be so good as to finish that sentence and please explain that point to us. That may be very helpful.

Andrew Stunell: Okay, probably the most helpful thing to do would be to start the sentence again from the beginning. What is required when a decision is taken is that there should be an appropriate balance between the national factors-which in future will be set by the national planning policy framework and which are currently set by note 3-and, on the other hand, the requirement to protect the environment and the communities where the development is proposed. That is what is tussled over at the moment.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I thank the Minister once again for giving way; he has been remarkably generous and gracious. When talking about protecting the environment and communities, he seems to have left out one key point, and that is the individual. I was struck very much by the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) made about the lady in the Wrekin, aged 87, who suddenly had a mine come right up to her window and who could not go out of her house. Surely Her Majesty's Government and we as Members of Parliament are here to protect individuals. If we are talking about just the environment and communities, that is leaving elderly people in a most unsatisfactory position.

Andrew Stunell: I absolutely agree. As I have said, I am somewhat constrained because I cannot comment on individual applications, but it would seem extraordinary if, in this day and age of environmental impact assessments, it was considered appropriate to site open-cast mining within such a small distance.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I would not ask the Minister to speak to individual cases, but will he lay down some general principles as to how individuals might be protected and how Government policy might develop in that direction, even in the absence of the Bill? Will he also tell us whether compensation could be paid to people such as the lady in the Wrekin? We need to understand that individuals in our constituencies really will be protected.

Andrew Stunell: There are two ways in which that will be advanced from where we are now. The first will involve the national planning policy framework, on which we are currently consulting and inviting views. When hon. Members read this debate in  Hansard, they will note that I have reminded them of the opportunity to give us their views on this matter. That consultation will set the level of priority to be given to the national case for the extraction of coal by open-cast mining in England. Set in balance with that will be-and, indeed, are-the social and environment factors that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has just invited me to comment on.

Dan Byles: At the risk of being called to order for speaking for a community that is not in my constituency, may I draw the Minister's attention to the case of the people of Ffos-y-fran, with whom I have spoken about this issue? I urge him to get in touch with the action group there, and to invite himself down there to stand in the garden of the house that is 36 metres from the open-cast pit, so that he can see for himself the impact that these activities can have on people.

Andrew Stunell: I would be ready to go there, although I must point out that I would not be able to offer an opinion because of the role of the Secretary of State in these matters. I am in no way dismissing the very strong concerns that Members have expressed in this debate. The Government are not dismissing them either. We are saying that is right and appropriate for local planning authorities to be the people who set the guidelines. If they think it is appropriate to have a buffer zone in their area with a presumption of refusal inside that zone, that is a matter for them. However, such a decision has to be justified on the facts of each individual case and, at the moment, the planning authorities have to balance with that the factors in note 3.

Anna Soubry: I understand the dilemma in which the Minister finds himself, perhaps on many fronts, and I would not ask him to express an opinion, but would he be so good as to come to the villages of Cossall and Trowell in my constituency? There, he would see an historic area of land with a strong link to D. H. Lawrence-indeed, his fiancée's cottage is in Cossall. This piece of our green belt is much loved by many people in Broxtowe, but it is now under threat from open-cast mining. The people there would be grateful to the Minister for coming to the area and at least looking at the issues, if not giving his opinion on them.

Andrew Stunell: I am looking forward to my grand tour. I will certainly consider any invitations from hon. Members to visit their areas.
	The national planning policy framework will set out the Government's economic, environmental and social priorities for the planning system in England in a single, concise document covering all major forms of development proposals handled by local authorities. Existing policy areas covered by guidance will be integrated into that document. That will, of course, include note 3. The review will consider the environmental impacts of minerals extraction. This is an opportunity to ensure that we have got the right policy for this country to take account of our particular circumstances.
	I therefore ask the hon. Members who have taken part in the debate to offer their suggestions to the Department on which priorities and policies we might adopt-[Hon. Members: "The Bill!"] Well, that is fine.  Hansard will stand as a record of Members' views on this matter. However, the national planning policy framework will not be a Bill; it will be a policy framework-
	 The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 11( 2 )).
	 Ordered, That the debate be resumed on Friday 28 October.

Business without Debate

SEX AND RELATIONSHIPS EDUCATION BILL

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	 Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 1 April.

APPRENTICESHIPS AND SKILLS (PUBLIC PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS) BILL

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	 Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 17 June.

CONTAMINATED BLOOD (SUPPORT FOR INFECTED AND BEREAVED PERSONS) BILL [ LORDS]

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	 Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 1 April.

COUNCIL HOUSING (LOCAL FINANCING PATHFINDERS) BILL

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	 Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 1 Apri1.

PARLIAMENTARY STANDARDS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	 Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 4 March .

Tom Watson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This morning the High Court ruled on the decision of the Secretary of State for Education to cut the Building Schools for the Future programme, claiming that it was unlawful, unfair and an abuse of power. Have you heard a squeak from the Secretary of State, Mr Deputy Speaker? Is he going to come to this House to explain himself?

Lindsay Hoyle: The matter has been raised already, and I have heard nothing further on it.

CLEVELAND FIRE AUTHORITY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn .-(Jeremy  Wright .)

Iain Wright: I would be grateful if you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would convey my thanks to Mr Speaker and his office for going out of their way to help me secure what I view as a very important debate for my area.
	We should be in no doubt that having an appropriate, effective and resilient fire and rescue service to cope with incidents is a vital part of our economy and society. The tragic death in a fire at his home yesterday morning of former England cricketer, Trevor Bailey, shows all too sadly how fire deaths still occur. The thoughts of the House are with his family, especially his wife Greta, who thankfully survived the fire.
	At the start of my comments, may I also pay tribute to all those brave firefighters in Cleveland and elsewhere who, day-in and day-out, week-in and week-out, leave their families and risk their lives in the pursuit of a safe and fire-free society? It is absolutely right and proper to say that firefighters deserve the public's full respect, appreciation and support. I also wish to put on record the fact that my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) had wanted to be here. You will appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, that because today is a Friday-always a busy day in constituencies for hon. Members-they are unable to do so.
	I know that the Minister in his place on the Treasury Bench is not the Minister with responsibility for fire, but I used to have the same job that he now holds in the Department for Communities and Local Government, so I know from my experience that his diary will be filled by people and organisations coming to see him every single day to say that although they appreciate that cuts and efficiencies have to be made, their particular circumstances warrant special consideration or treatment. In the case of Cleveland fire brigade, I urge the Minister to recognise that this really is a special, unique and nationally significant case.
	There are two big factors that massively increase the risk of serious and fatal fires. The first is large concentrations of industry; the second is pockets of social and economic deprivation. The area served by Cleveland fire authority has an abundance of both. My area has the largest concentration of chemical and petro-engineering sites anywhere in Europe. My constituency has a nuclear power station, with the possibility of a replacement to be built in the next few years. There is a gas power station nearby at Wilton. Both facilities generate a significant proportion of the nation's electricity for the National Grid. As for national infrastructure, the Tees and Hartlepool port authority handles more than 50 million tonnes of cargo a year, making it the largest UK port in tonnage terms. The port is growing in importance in distribution to supermarkets and other businesses, making its continuing operation vital to business continuity for much of the retail sector in the north of England and Scotland. Hundreds of thousands of chemical tanker movements take place through Teesside by road, rail or sea every day. A major fire incident, which involved loss of service for the power stations, the port or the road network in the north-east heading up to Scotland, would ensure significant disruption costing billions of pounds to the national economy. As for control of major accident hazards, or COMAH, sites, Cleveland fire authority has 34 of the highest top-tier risks and three of the lower-tier sites, the biggest number of such sites in the country. The Cleveland fire authority area represents 12% of the COMAH sites in Britain, the biggest concentration in the country.
	To put matters into perspective, the biggest fire incident that the country has seen in the post-war era was at Buncefield, where a number of explosions took place in oil storage depots in December 2005. The incident resulted in a massive fire, which engulfed the site, damaged nearby residential and commercial properties and required the evacuation of many homes and businesses from the vicinity. The fire burned for several days and emitted large clouds of black smoke into the atmosphere. I vividly recall travelling down by train from Hartlepool to the House on the day after the explosion and seeing the black smoke from many miles away.
	To put the risk facing the Cleveland fire authority area into perspective, a single fuel storage tank facility in my constituency is 100 times larger than the facilities that exploded at Buncefield. The potential of a major fire incident in my constituency or throughout the Cleveland area, although horrific to contemplate, needs to be identified, managed, planned and, crucially, funded, as comprehensively as possible. Teesside has enormous potential in the next few years to become the country's leader in advanced manufacturing, and to be the national centre of excellence for energy, particularly renewable energy, and in the process industries. The private sector, before pumping billions of pounds of investment into an area or country, will rightly want to assess factors such as skills levels, but will also wish to reassure itself that protection of its investment, in terms of resilience against fire, will be provided. A failure to do so could severely hinder the prospect of economic growth in my region. The Minister should consider that factor.
	The second biggest factor in identifying the risk of a major fire incident is social and economic deprivation. A direct correlation exists between the income of a person and whether that person has a higher-than-average exposure to fire risk. Teesside has high levels of unemployment, at about twice the national average, and that jobless total is rising fast as a result of the Government's economic policy. The most recent index of multiple deprivation measure showed that 40% of all wards within the Cleveland fire authority area fall within the worst 10% nationally. The authority must also deal with the problems of crime and anti-social behaviour. I am not proud to say that the Cleveland area suffers from one of the highest arson rates in the country, with an estimated nine out of 10 fires considered to have been started deliberately.
	Those factors-high concentrations of industry, important aspects of vital national infrastructure and social and economic deprivation-mean that Cleveland fire authority must be seen as a special, even unique, case. It is imperative that the area has not only a fire and rescue service that is adequately funded, but one that is no less than the best in the world, in order to manage the risk of major fire incidents. Under the Government, however, that level of support and funding is not forthcoming. Cleveland fire authority is being asked to find disproportionately high cuts. Under the comprehensive spending review, fire resource expenditure will be reduced in real terms, across the country, by about 13%. The revenue support grant, from which Cleveland fire authority receives about two thirds of its total income, will see a cut of about a quarter.
	What is particularly disappointing is that Cleveland fire authority is being subjected to much larger cuts than other fire authorities. Throughout the CSR period, Cleveland is being asked to find cuts of about £9 million from a total budget of about £33 million. In the current financial year the fire authority's budget has risen by 0.5% in cash terms, whereas metropolitan authorities' budgets have has risen by an average of 1.3% and those of combined fire authorities by an average of 2%. In the financial year 2011-12, only one fire authority in the country will experience a greater reduction in funding, while the funding of a quarter of authorities will actually grow, albeit in cash rather than real terms.
	Given the unique nature of my area and the challenges facing Cleveland, which I mentioned earlier-high concentrations of industry, pockets of social and economic deprivation, and the need to maintain business continuity for essential parts of the national infrastructure-how is that fair? Surely a risk factor needs to be included in the calculation of any funding formula for fire authorities. The calculation should take into account the special circumstances in my area, and ensure that the best and most effective risk management can be undertaken.
	What is also galling is that the fire authority has already risen to the challenge by making efficiencies, streamlining procedure, and being forward-looking and innovative. This is not a fire authority that is rooted in the past. In the last five years it has taken more than £5 million worth of costs out of its organisation, thus becoming the second most successful fire authority in terms of efficiency savings per head of the population.
	At the same time, the authority's performance and presence in the community has grown massively. It has passionately embraced the community safety agenda, and has adopted a proactive stance in identifying households at particular risk of fire, such as those of the elderly. Its work in that regard-replacing chip pans and electric blankets and fitting smoke alarms-is increasing exponentially, and has been incredibly successful. It has achieved the greatest reduction in primary fires and accidental dwelling fires in the period since 2001-02, and it has committed the fourth greatest number of hours to proactive fire prevention, being beaten only by three large metropolitan brigades. It is in the community, emphasising fire safety and prevention. However, given the level of the current cuts, such activity-which actually saves money in the long run-will have to stop.
	I genuinely fear that the level of these cuts is beginning to compromise public and firefighter safety, and that-given our unique profile, which I mentioned earlier-the ability of Cleveland fire brigade to tackle a major incident on Teesside is being stretched to breaking point. I said earlier that the bigger post-war fire in this country was the one at Buncefield. The second biggest was on Teesside, at the BASF plant in Wilton. In October 1995, 40 appliances from Cleveland fire brigade and 200 firefighters tackled an industrial blaze that took three days to extinguish.
	I fear that the cuts imposed on Cleveland fire authority by the Government are compromising Cleveland's ability to tackle a repeat of the 1995 fire. The fire authority now has only half as many appliances as it did in 1995. With the greatest respect to retained firefighters from the area and from neighbouring Durham and North Yorkshire, who do a fantastic job, they do not have enough specialist technical knowledge to extinguish a complex industrial fire on such a large scale.
	I hope that I have made clear to the Minister the special and unique challenges in the face of which Cleveland fire authority must operate. I have outlined my real concern that the cuts being imposed on my local fire service are pushing to the very limits the brigade's ability and capacity to cope with a major incident. The Minister and his Department should reconsider the cuts that are being required, the nature of the grant and its component parts, and the special circumstances of my area. I ask him to reassure me, to reassure Ian Hayton, the chief fire officer, and-most important of all-to reassure the people and businesses who operate on Teesside that future funding arrangements for Cleveland fire authority will allow the firefighters in my area to do their job safely and effectively.

Andrew Stunell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) on securing the debate. Listening to his speech, I thought that we had done a completely unexpected job swap. I hope I will be able to give him some of the reassurances he seeks.
	The Government have made a clear commitment to ensuring that the effectiveness of front-line services is protected, but deficit reduction is the No. 1 priority. We are borrowing £400 million a day, or £150 billion this year. Deficit reduction has to be the top priority.
	In that context, we gave the fire and rescue service some protection in the recent settlement.

Iain Wright: I apologise for intervening so soon. Is the Minister seriously suggesting that deficit reduction takes precedence over fire protection and safety?

Andrew Stunell: Of course it does not. As I said, we gave the fire and rescue service some protection in the recent settlement. Single-purpose fire and rescue authorities will see a reduction in revenue spending power, taking into account grants from central Government and council tax, of 2.2% in 2011-12 and only 0.5% in 2012-13. It is clear that fire and rescue services will need to increase efficiency and deliver reform. However, we have not ignored their special circumstances. I believe that it is a fair settlement for the fire service in what are undoubtedly very challenging times for the public services in general.
	We have back-loaded cuts to fire and rescue services to the last two years of the four-year spending review period. That will give fire and rescue authorities the time they need to make the necessary changes without affecting the quality and breadth of the services that they provide. However, there will still be tough choices to be made and I appreciate that Cleveland is not excluded from that. However, we believe that significant savings can be found by fire and rescue services, including through staffing arrangements, sickness management, recruitment freezes, shared services and back-office functions. Other things will be relevant to individual authorities.
	The 2011-13 formula grant settlement for Cleveland fire authority was part of what was debated and approved by Parliament on Wednesday. Cleveland's representations were taken into account by the Secretary of State along with all other representations.
	On Cleveland's settlement, the reduction in formula grant is 9.5% in 2011-12 and 3.4% in 2012-13, but it is important to consider the other funding that Cleveland receives. All told, the fire and rescue authority will see an overall reduction in spending power of 5.6% in 2011-12 and 2.2% in 2012-13.
	The authority has been protected. The hon. Gentleman's points about deprivation and risk have been taken into account. I want to set out how that has been done and the effect of that on Cleveland.
	We have struck a balance in the distribution system, protecting fire and rescue authorities from the largest reductions and allowing a settlement that is closely aligned to needs. Nine other single-purpose fire authorities are experiencing the same size percentage reduction as Cleveland. However, I want the hon. Gentleman clearly to understand that Cleveland has received the largest amount of grant per head among all fire and rescue authorities-£36 per head in 2011-12. I asked officials what would be a comparable authority in terms of size and complexity of risk. They suggested that Cheshire would be such an authority; it has many high-risk sites along the Mersey valley and is approximately of equivalent size. Cheshire's amount of grant per head is £18, half the amount per head allocated to fire and rescue services in Cleveland. I therefore hope the hon. Gentleman understands that the formula reflects factors such as deprivation, population density and the presence of high-risk sites. Thus, Cleveland receives greater funding because it has a large number of control of major accident hazards-or COMAH-sites, a low council tax base and problems of deprivation and unemployment, to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention. I want to take this opportunity to assure him that central Government are continuing their investment in Cleveland's fire and rescue services.
	Nationally, capital grant funding for the fire service has increased from £45 million to £70 million in the coming year. That is in recognition of the need for fire and rescue authorities to maintain their investment in capital assets, and it provides the potential for making efficiency savings at a time when resource budgets are under greater pressure.

Iain Wright: I am grateful to the Minister for mentioning capital. My understanding is that Cleveland fire authority's private finance initiative bid has been rejected, with no suitable replacement being put in place. Will the Minister advise me on how the authority can best put itself forward for capital schemes, in order to provide efficiencies in the long run?

Andrew Stunell: I will do that shortly, if I may. First, let me put it on the record that in 2011-12 Cleveland will benefit from £1,012,000 in capital grant funding, which represents a funding increase of about 40% on the previous year. The capital allocation to Cleveland will be increased, therefore. We are currently considering a number of options for distributing future years capital funding, and we will consult on the best way to focus capital funding in order to drive efficiencies and reform, which I hope was the point the hon. Gentleman was making.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly drew my attention to the private finance initiative. There is a North East Fire and Rescue Authorities-NEFRA-2 PFI project, of which Cleveland is the lead fire authority. That was a pipeline project for which funding has been discontinued. We recognise that there are concerns about that. The Department is working with the NEFRA 2 authorities to consider possible funding alternatives over the spending review period. A Department for Communities and Local Government finance committee will shortly meet to review the funding options for this project, and we hope to have a decision shortly.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to a major incident in the Cleveland fire authority area and to the pressures it had put on resources. That is why there is a national resilience programme. I suspect the hon. Gentleman has more background knowledge of that than I have, and he will know that the Government currently make payments to Cleveland and other fire and rescue authorities in recognition of the costs additional to the cost of meeting their local responsibilities, in order to maintain their "new dimension" equipment and the use of the Firelink radio system. Next year, we will pay Cleveland a grant of just over £100,000 in respect of Firelink and some £69,000 in respect of "new dimension" equipment. We need to develop future funding arrangements to make sure national resilience is maintained, but in the meantime we will continue to fund the good work that is being done.
	There are a number of major risks within Cleveland and, as with all fire and rescue authorities, Cleveland can rely on the availability of national resilience assets in planning and responding to a significant incident in its area. The hon. Gentleman did not specifically mention the fire control project, but Cleveland is the lead authority on that, and I want to assure him that the Department is open for consultation responses until 8 April this year. I am sure that Cleveland, as the lead authority, will be working with partners to come forward with proposals for alternatives, now that the fire control project has ended.
	The way in which the resources available to Cleveland are used is a local matter to be determined by individual authorities, and it is not appropriate for me to comment on them, but I shall discuss one aspect that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, which relates to fire safety. I understand that in the past five years Cleveland has had 16 fire deaths, with an average of three a year. Obviously that is three a year too many, but the level is low compared with the rest of England and I am sure that the good work that the fire and rescue service has been doing has been a major contributor to that. When it decides its spending pattern over the next two years and during the comprehensive spending review period, I hope that it will very much have in mind the fact that its good work through the Fire Kills campaign and other programmes provides both it and the Government with value for money. I hope that it will continue to prioritise that work.
	It has been suggested to me that I need not take as long in responding to this debate as I did on the earlier one, so I shall conclude by saying that although I cannot speculate on funding beyond 2012-13 for Cleveland or for anywhere else, it is clear that the fire and rescue service will be required to deliver increased efficiency and reform. It will be for individual fire and rescue authorities to plan and decide how to do that.
	I wish to assure the hon. Gentleman that the coalition Government remain completely committed to ensuring that our vital public services are properly funded and properly run, and that they deliver a safe environment for all our citizens.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.